NCL Dawn limping from port to port

[david_sobe]

Dear friends:

 

There is a huge difference between a medical emergency onboard, or missing ports due to weather, as opposed to missing ports because the engines are broken and the ship can only travel at half the speed.

 

The cruise line definitely is responsible for making sure it's ship is in working order, no matter what they write in their contracts, and while I can understand perfectly consumer empathy when an emergency does occur such as a medical situation, or bad weather, but I do not understand any passenger siding with NCL or any other cruise line and accepting that a cruise line does not have the obligation to carry the passenger on a ship that is free from mechanical failures and that is able to ride at normal speed.

 

Kind regards,

 

Gunther and Uta

BINGO

Lights, sirens and confetti may now begin for the best answer of the day!

 

This happened with the Carnival Destiny too. NCL is not the first or last cruiseline to do this to passengers. I specifially did not book a Dawn cruise and posted this was going to happen about 6 months ago. Here is the issue. The ship is booked full of cruises but suffers mechanical issues. NCL booked Dawn into an ealier dry dock. But was scratching off far away places so that high speed could not function with mechinical issues. It is a huge gamble to keep taking cruises month after month. Sometimes it pays off and the ship can get into dry dock and no major cancellations happen. But like the Carnival Destiny (do a google search), things finally "blew up" and the ship could only limp to the Bahamas instead of Jamaica.

 

So long story short is that it is very unfair to do this to passengers. You cannot control weather or emergencies but you must maintain a ship in good working order.

It is NOT NCL bashing. Just facts.

[MTL=CRUISEFAMILY]

Yes it's clearly stated in that famous very fair contract that was equally negotiated on fair footing between both parties that the cruise line is not responsible for mechanical problems.

 

And your contracts in the United States also used to say that you couldn't sell houses or life insurance policies to blacks.

Yes, of course, stuff happens, and a cruise line can have mechanical problems that can significantly impact the itinerary of the cruise. But the cruise line is responsible for its mechanical problems ..... that is the difference, while it is not responsible for the weather.

 

Don't believe everything you read in "contracts".

 

Kind regards,

 

Gunther and Uta

 

Really, do you really want to bring historical racial biasis?

How does Germany fare in this?

[CruisinGerman]

The same RCCL contract (just to use an example) published in Europe does not say what the American RCCL contract says.

 

The European contract says that if RCCL significantly alters the itinerary before the trip begins, it has to offer a full refund or, if the passenger chooses to still go on the trip, it has to offer compensation.

 

The contract goes onto say that if RCCL significantly alters the itinerary during the trip, it has to pay proportional compensation.

 

Contracts are written in different jurisdictions to satisfy what the local laws will let the cruise line get away with. So that same contract you folks are all quoting saying that the cruise line can do anything is definitely not the same contract used in all jurisdictions.

 

And the racial remark was just to demonstrate the RIDICULOUS things that contracts try to enforce in their own terms until a Court comes along someday and sets things right.

 

Kind regards,

 

Gunther and Uta

[MTL=CRUISEFAMILY]

The same RCCL contract (just to use an example) published in Europe does not say what the American RCCL contract says.

 

The European contract says that if RCCL significantly alters the itinerary before the trip begins, it has to offer a full refund or, if the passenger chooses to still go on the trip, it has to offer compensation.

 

The contract goes onto say that if RCCL significantly alters the itinerary during the trip, it has to pay proportional compensation.

 

Contracts are written in different jurisdictions to satisfy what the local laws will let the cruise line get away with. So that same contract you folks are all quoting saying that the cruise line can do anything is definitely not the same contract used in all jurisdictions.

 

And the racial remark was just to demonstrate the RIDICULOUS things that contracts try to enforce in their own terms until a Court comes along someday and sets things right.

 

Kind regards,

 

Gunther and Uta

 

You keep pointing to the obvious, but in this part of the world TODAY, we have no choice but accept what is dictated, that is not to say we like it or defend the cruiselines for being able to do it.

[CruisinGerman]

The cruise lines in the United States write those absurd contracts precisely to incite a reaction like the one you have just stated.

 

"We have to accept what is dictated to us".

 

They know that 99% of consumers will just conform and not pursue their rights.

 

That doesn't mean that the cruise line is legally correct and a consumer should never ever be frightened away from asserting his rights. If a consumer does not assert his or her rights, the system will never change.

 

Kind regards,

 

Gunther and Uta

[tntornadox]

So long story short is that it is very unfair to do this to passengers. You cannot control weather or emergencies but you must maintain a ship in good working order.

 

I personally never alluded to the fact that it is fair to the guest that NCL or any cruise line has to alter course for any reason... my point is that they have insulated themselves against legal proceedings in their cruise contracts.

 

The cruise lines in the United States write those absurd contracts precisely to incite a reaction like the one you have just stated.

 

"We have to accept what is dictated to us".

 

They know that 99% of consumers will just conform and not pursue their rights.

 

And whats rights do you have AFTER the fact? One cruised, accepted the contract as it stood. You cannot argue against a contract after it's been 'signed' and services rendered. If you don't like the wording, one would take it up with the company before signing it and especially before receiving their services. The consumer can't decide they don't agree with a contract after the fact and expect it to hold water in a legal proceeding.

[sjbdtz]

I do not understand any passenger siding with NCL or any other cruise line and accepting that a cruise line does not have the obligation to carry the passenger on a ship that is free from mechanical failures

 

I flew a few weeks ago on a plane where the in-seat entertainment system, a key element of why I chose this airline over alternatives, was exhibiting a mechanical faillure. They did NOT give me a 100% refund of my ticket. No, they gave me $50 worth of loyalty mileage points.

 

So let me ask you this: If the ship had the capacity to sail at full speed, but the Captain CHOSE not to (as is his wont...it's his vessel), you'd be okay with that?

 

 

 

 

Here in the United States, a contract is a legally binding document. It is agreed upon by both parties because the passenger AGREES to it when they set foot on their vessel.

 

Actually they agree to it when they purchase a ticket.

 

They can choose to NOT agree to it and not board, should they so choose.

 

 

Also, it is nearly impossible to sue a cruise line on these grounds and win. For one, you must appear in court in Miami, regardless of where the alleged incident occured and you must argue your case. More than likely the judge will allude to the contract and throw it out. You just wasted time, money and energy better spent elsewhere.

 

Actually, NCL's contract states that you agree to binding arbitration, in Miami, based on Miami law.

 

 

 

Sections 10 & 14 of the contract.

[BIG_Steve]

Reading this whole thread, I still don't see how so many of the folks saying "it's in your contract!" Don't see the difference between a mechanical failure at Sea, and a known failure before departure, one which will impact the cruise.

 

Stuff breaks, but to not say anything under these circumstances is very poor business, possibly worse.

[CruisinGerman]

Sorry, folks, in a unilateral adhesion contract, most local U.S. courts will accept jurisdiction on the basis that the cruise line does business in every state outside of Florida by selling their cruises, and the passenger has the right to sue in the state where he or she lives or purchased the cruise. So although the cruise line tries to force Miami venue on you in its contract, that usually doesn't work and courts in other states usually allow the case to proceed.

 

And the cruise line's excuse that by sailing and boarding, you automatically agree to their contract also gets scrutinized very carefully by the court hearing the case. And that's in the United States. In the European Union, those types of clauses are automatically considered abusive, null and void and the contract is interpreted as if those clauses didn't exist.

 

So yes, you can fight city hall, but it usually is not in either your or the cruise line's interest to do so, since there will most often be some sort of goodwill settlement before it ever gets that far.

 

Kind regards,

 

Gunther and Uta

[tntornadox]

Sorry, folks, in a unilateral adhesion contract, most local U.S. courts will accept jurisdiction on the basis that the cruise line does business in every state outside of Florida by selling their cruises, and the passenger has the right to sue in the state where he or she lives or purchased the cruise. So although the cruise line tries to force Miami venue on you in its contract, that usually doesn't work and courts in other states usually allow the case to proceed.

 

I've never heard of another jurisdiction taking up a case involving a cruise line outside of Miami, I may be wrong. But it would definitely be a very rare case if it does exist.

[CruisinGerman]

Cruise lines and travel operators get sued all the time in all 50 states plus the U.S. territories plus foreign jurisdictions.

 

The only cases you ever really hear of in Miami are the larger federal cases where the cruise lines are accused of unfair employment practices, price fixing, illegally using the fuel surcharge, illegally tampering with the concept of "port charge", etc.

 

Most "minor amount" consumer cases are filed in the jurisdiction where the consumer lives.

 

Kind regards,

 

Gunther and Uta

[halos]

The cruise lines in the United States write those absurd contracts precisely to incite a reaction like the one you have just stated.

 

"We have to accept what is dictated to us".

 

They know that 99% of consumers will just conform and not pursue their rights.

 

That doesn't mean that the cruise line is legally correct and a consumer should never ever be frightened away from asserting his rights. If a consumer does not assert his or her rights, the system will never change.

 

Kind regards,

 

Gunther and Uta

 

You just don't seem to grasp that we are in no way conforming.

 

Not everyone cruises to see specific ports...those of us that roll with the punches are likely people who cruise because we love to cruise

Period.

This does not make us imbeciles that are just willing to go along with what the cruise lines dictate in the contract.

 

I don't NEED the system to change.

I'm fine with it.

 

It seems to me, if you need the system to change, all that means is you need another way to spend your vacation.

If you are a traveler...by all means TRAVEL.

 

I am a cruiser. I don't care where I go, I just want to be on a ship. The contract is perfect as far as I'm concerned.

[kerrytens]

BINGO

Lights, sirens and confetti may now begin for the best answer of the day!

 

This happened with the Carnival Destiny too. But like the Carnival Destiny (do a google search), things finally "blew up" and the ship could only limp to the Bahamas instead of Jamaica.

 

So long story short is that it is very unfair to do this to passengers. You cannot control weather or emergencies but you must maintain a ship in good working order.

It is NOT NCL bashing. Just facts.

I was on that infamous Destiny cruise that limped around the Caribbean until we finally made it to Nassau - it was the one that finally made CCL sit up and pay attention to the fact that the ship needed a drydock and soon (not saying that the Dawn needs one by any means but I know that the Destiny did).

 

There were certainly many angry pax onboard but I found an equal number who were doing what I did - having fun anyway. It wasn't as if we were dead in the water ala the Splendor. We had power, we had great food, we had entertainment, we had continued great service from a staff who had sadly seen this all way too many times before ... we still had our cruise.

 

I can sympathize with those onboard the Dawn - I really can. But I can't sympathize with words of lawsuits etc. I honestly think the compensation received was quite fair - it certainly was more than we received.

[CruisinGerman]

To be honest with you, we've been on so many cruises in our life that I probably wouldn't care where we go, either.

 

But that doesn't make it right, and any cruise line has the obligation to transport its passengers on a ship that is fully operational, without engine damage, and not cancel 2/3 of the ports in the published itinerary.

 

And admittedly, you are in the minority, because most people do care where they go and the ports are an extremely important part of the experience for them.

 

And as far as you liking the contract the way it is, it just isn't human nature for a consumer to be happy with a document that says that the other party can do whatever it wants to the consumer and the consumer has no recourse. What you're probably saying is that, up until now, you have not really been adversely affected and therefore, you have had no need to try to enforce that contract in your favor.

 

Kind regards,

 

Gunther and Uta

[Sawonmv]

John,

I was on the same Dawn cruise and was very disappointed with the change in itinerary and the fact the we got $200 OBC! It annoys me that people who were in an inside cabin, we we're in a suite, received the exact same OBC amount! THEN on top of that we had to endure a fire on board late Thursday night. Imagine waking up and hearing that announcement.

Definitely my last cruise with Norwegian!

[debt]

Cruise lines and travel operators get sued all the time in all 50 states plus the U.S. territories plus foreign jurisdictions.

 

The only cases you ever really hear of in Miami are the larger federal cases where the cruise lines are accused of unfair employment practices, price fixing, illegally using the fuel surcharge, illegally tampering with the concept of "port charge", etc.

 

Most "minor amount" consumer cases are filed in the jurisdiction where the consumer lives.

 

Kind regards,

 

Gunther and Uta

 

Don't you think it's a bit dishonest to merge European law with American law in regards to consumer rights? No contract is 100% ironclad, but when 2 parties agree to a contract, its done with the belief that both sides understand just what the contract is about.

 

I don't mean to belittle anyone who's had difficulties of one type or another on a cruise. We all have different thresholds on what we percieve as fair. But cruises, like everything else in life, will never be 100% failsafe no matter how high our expectations are. There are situations, like the Carnival Splendor, where compensation is warrented. Missing a port, in my opinion, is a chance you take when you board the cruise.

[martinchem]

Norwegian has a history of altering itineraries and giving OBC till the next dry dock to fix problems when they occur.

[Mooder]

John,

I was on the same Dawn cruise and was very disappointed with the change in itinerary and the fact the we got $200 OBC! It annoys me that people who were in an inside cabin, we we're in a suite, received the exact same OBC amount! THEN on top of that we had to endure a fire on board late Thursday night. Imagine waking up and hearing that announcement.

Definitely my last cruise with Norwegian!

 

I sympathize but how did missing ports impact you any more than it did someone in an inside cabin? Were you not permitted to use your suite when the itinerary changed??? :confused:

[oldguysandgalls]

:( :confused: :rolleyes: :mad:

 

Good heavens Sawonmv !!! ????

Did you really mean what you said????:

Quote: " It annoys me that people who were in an inside cabin, we we're in a suite, received the exact same OBC amount"! End quote

 

All we can say is thank goodness the Dawn didn't have to lower the life boats...... Imagine this: " Okay all you inside cabin people.......the life boats are for SUITE people ONLY ". "Stand back-stand back"!

 

Good Lord !

 

PS. You would have loved the Titanic :rolleyes:

 

 

John,

I was on the same Dawn cruise and was very disappointed with the change in itinerary and the fact the we got $200 OBC! It annoys me that people who were in an inside cabin, we we're in a suite, received the exact same OBC amount! THEN on top of that we had to endure a fire on board late Thursday night. Imagine waking up and hearing that announcement.

Definitely my last cruise with Norwegian!

[halos]

And admittedly, you are in the minority, because most people do care where they go and the ports are an extremely important part of the experience for them.

 

And as far as you liking the contract the way it is, it just isn't human nature for a consumer to be happy with a document that says that the other party can do whatever it wants to the consumer and the consumer has no recourse. What you're probably saying is that, up until now, you have not really been adversely affected and therefore, you have had no need to try to enforce that contract in your favor.

 

Kind regards,

 

Gunther and Uta

 

 

Well, I wouldn't know if I'm in the minority or not...I haven't taken a poll :rolleyes:

What I can tell you is that IF I ever am on a cruise that has an issue (and I plan on cruising a lot in my future, so odds are that it will happen) I will not feel any differently than I do right now.

I cruised once in the month of August while 3 tropical storms were brewing into hurricanes. I cruised with a group of 30+ family and friends and warned them all to take a sweater in case we wind up in New England.

I was mentally prepared for it.

 

I am always mentally prepared to miss a port....weather, mechanical issue or any othe rreason, I don't care. That last sentence of yours that I highlighted is about as false a statement as possible.

 

Bottom line is that the cruise lines will not change no matter how hard and loud you protest....in order to ensure and INsure 100% perfection on a cruise, the lines (ALL of them) would have to raise the cruise price so high that they'd price themselves right out of business.

You are extremely naive if you think changing the contract is a battle you could win.

 

 

 

 

Good heavens Sawonmv !!! ????

 

Did you really mean what you said????:

 

Quote: " It annoys me that people who were in an inside cabin, we we're in a suite, received the exact same OBC amount"! End quote

 

 

 

All we can say is thank goodness the Dawn didn't have to lower the life boats...... Imagine this: " Okay all you inside cabin people.......SUITE people only". "Stand back-stand back"!

 

 

 

PS. You would have loved the Titanic

 

 

 

Seriously :rolleyes:

...my thoughts exactly

 

Good Grief!

What does what cabin you are in have to do with missed ports???

*shakeshead*

[Planer's Edge]

Norwegian has a history of altering itineraries and giving OBC till the next dry dock to fix problems when they occur.

Please present some facts to support your opinion.

 

PE

[Planer's Edge]

John,

I was on the same Dawn cruise and was very disappointed with the change in itinerary and the fact the we got $200 OBC! It annoys me that people who were in an inside cabin, we we're in a suite, received the exact same OBC amount! THEN on top of that we had to endure a fire on board late Thursday night. Imagine waking up and hearing that announcement.

Definitely my last cruise with Norwegian!

 

Yet another brand new identity to chime in on the topic. :rolleyes:

 

PE

[oldguysandgalls]

Sawonmv....It must have been a dreadful, simply dreadful experience for you to HAVE to share the ship with those "inside cabin" people.

 

CAPTAIN!!! Remove those "people" from the ship.....yes the ones in the SUITES.

 

Good Lord !

 

 

 

 

:( :confused: :rolleyes: :mad:

 

Good heavens Sawonmv !!! ????

Did you really mean what you said????:

Quote: " It annoys me that people who were in an inside cabin, we we're in a suite, received the exact same OBC amount"! End quote

 

All we can say is thank goodness the Dawn didn't have to lower the life boats...... Imagine this: " Okay all you inside cabin people.......the life boats are for SUITE people ONLY ". "Stand back-stand back"!

 

Good Lord !

 

PS. You would have loved the Titanic :rolleyes:

[tntornadox]

John,

I was on the same Dawn cruise and was very disappointed with the change in itinerary and the fact the we got $200 OBC! It annoys me that people who were in an inside cabin, we we're in a suite, received the exact same OBC amount!

 

I am reminded of a quote from Titanic...

 

"Will the lifeboats be seated according to class, I do hope it's not too crowded!" :rolleyes:

[tlm]

John,

I was on the same Dawn cruise and was very disappointed with the change in itinerary and the fact the we got $200 OBC! It annoys me that people who were in an inside cabin, we we're in a suite, received the exact same OBC amount! THEN on top of that we had to endure a fire on board late Thursday night. Imagine waking up and hearing that announcement.

Definitely my last cruise with Norwegian!

 

I really don't think the amount of OBC should have anything to do with whether or not you were in an inside cabin or a suite. Everyone missed the same ports! By the way we were in a suite on the same sailing and as I have stated before, are quite satisfied with the compensation. We have sailed with other cruise lines where we have had ports changed and in one case we had our cruise shortened by one day and the compensation has not been nearly as good.

 

Besides you didn't mention the 10% future cruise credit which is based on the actual fare you paid. Therefore you would receive a bigger (by being in a suite) discount than someone else in an inside cabin.