NCL Dawn limping from port to port

[oldguysandgalls]

Sawonmv..it must have been dreadful, simply dreadfull that you HAD to share the ship with those "inside cabin people"...simply dreadful.

 

CAPTAIN!!??? :mad:

REMOVE those "SUITE" people from the ship, thank you.

 

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:

[david_sobe]

I dont want to beat a dead horse.. BUT

If someone would research old threads, there would be one about 6 months ago when it was first reported Dawn had engine problems. NCL chimed in that there would be no problems sailing to existing ports but they cut the long NYC route. I remember posting that I was considering a Dawn cruise but would never gamble or risk this exact situation. This may not ruin my cruise but I do feel for the guests since they cant get to ports. OBC is nice but I bet most would still want their original cruise back on schedule.

I hate to say "told you so" but cruise lines should not keep running ships with major engine problems. But I know they would lose a fortune of money. But you must be fair to your passengers. You cant have it both ways. You cant tell passengers 6 months ago that everything is fine even though one engine is out and then say OOOPS when things go bad to worse.

You cannot control the weather, accidents or medical emergencies. But you can control basic running needs of your ship. NCL pushed their luck on this one.

They are not the first and definately not the last. I just think it is unfair to attack the passengers who feel wronged.

[sjbdtz]

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.

 

 

 

So you would have been happier, if they'd cancelled 3/3rds of the ports and just not sailed?

 

You would have had unhappy passengers whose vacation was spoiled, unhappy staff who weren't working, and for what?

 

To please someone who isn't even sailing?

 

 

 

.

[Dutch Explorers]

After ready the OP it looks like NCL took a calculated risk knowing two engines were down before this cruise. This is somthing different than weather or "unexpected" mechanical issues.

Once all passengers are on board and then changing the itinerary did not leave any other option for the passenger than just accept it.

 

By offering OBC and a 10% discount the majority of the passengers will be satisfied.

A small percentage will not be satisfied with the compensation and will pursue further action and will most probably receive more compensation.

 

All in all this still will be more cost effective than any other alternative for the cruiseline.

 

It is most unfortunate that due to these kind of corporate decisions the front line employess suffer the most. They have to deal with all the mixed emotions and still try to keep everybody happy while there is nothing they can do about the situation.

 

Personally I would try to make the best of the situation (even if I am not happy with it) and enjoy my vacation. It never happened to me so that is easy to say ;)

I still would take it up with the cruiseline after my vacation argue my complaint in a professional manner.

 

How other people deal with the situation is really up to them, everybody is entitled to their own opinions and feelings, except when it spoils the vacation pleasure of other passengers.

 

Marco.

[fin]

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.

 

What you may well grasp, but many others quite obviously do not, is that your own individual viewpoint is just that, and is not representative of that of many others who carefully pick out five ports they would like to visit, and cruise to get there to see them.

 

The total lack of comprehension of some of the loyalists here of that basic principle is just numbing sometimes.

[Mooder]

So you would have been happier, if they'd cancelled 3/3rds of the ports and just not sailed?

 

You would have had unhappy passengers whose vacation was spoiled, unhappy staff who weren't working, and for what?

 

To please someone who isn't even sailing?

 

 

You bring me back to my point. Despite my asking several times, none of the upset cruisers will tell what they would have preferred or what compensation they want now. Leading me to think they just want sympathy or big bucks. If they would just make a clear statement of what they want done now, instead of repeating the complaints (both sides have now made their position repeatedly clear), we could have a more reasonable discussion.

[Mooder]

What you may well grasp, but many others quite obviously do not, is that your own individual viewpoint is just that, and is not representative of that of many others who carefully pick out five ports they would like to visit, and cruise to get there to see them.

 

The total lack of comprehension of some of the loyalists here of that basic principle is just numbing sometimes.

 

I'm a loyalist and I get it. I want the ports I pick and would be disappointed, while understanding it was a risk. What you haven't made clear is what you want and why you feel the offered compensation was insufficient. I completely agree that compensation was in order (even if not required), but how much is enough? I would have been satisfied with the $200 OBC and 10% credit.

[halos]

What you may well grasp, but many others quite obviously do not, is that your own individual viewpoint is just that, and is not representative of that of many others who carefully pick out five ports they would like to visit, and cruise to get there to see them.

 

The total lack of comprehension of some of the loyalists here of that basic principle is just numbing sometimes.

 

What I definitely do not grasp is why anyone whose desire is that strong to get to a certain destination, would cruise there.

I will never grasp that.

I am not a loyalist by any means. I have had this same argument on other cruise boards as well...because every cruise line encounters these issues.

(which is why I just shake my head when people here are currently swearing off NCL...as if this never occurs on any other line)

 

No matter how disappointed you are, you have to grasp that mechanical issues always are a possibility and ports are never guaranteed. This has nothing to do with loyalty...it's knowing what you are buying.

 

People think it'ssimple to just take a ship out of commission at any given point and dry dock/repair it....you all just have no comprehension of the logistics involved with this.

 

I can totally understand some disappointment...but the compensation people think they are entitled to is just totally off the wall insane.

[puppiesmom]

I, too, was disappointed with the cruise I selected based on ports of call that were changed upon sailing. I understand the risks of an emergent event occurring to change plans but the concern is that even though NCL knew it was having problems with the engines, long before we sailed, we weren't given the option of changing our plans prior to sailing! I would have cancelled! By the way, this ship is apparently going into dry dock in a few months.

Our cabin wasn't clean, bathrooms out of order, many leaks all over the ship, wet floors, falls by passengers and response from customer service was lacking. A ceiling slat on our balcony fell, narrowly missing our heads, was reported immediately to cabin steward who assured us he reported it to maintenance. Three days later customer service called, assured us the repair would be made the next morning (11 a.m.) while we were off ship in port. Not! Returned to ship late afternoon, went to dinner, back by cabin, no repair and late show, returned at 10:30 p.m. and it had been fixed! It only took 4 days.

Compensation? I didn't get what I paid for! A shipboard credit is nice but money spent on the ship is money spent on the ship. A refund to my account would be greatly appreciated! A 10% (per person?) off a future cruise booked within a year? Well. I am not sure we would sail NCL again. This was our first NCL cruise and more than likely our last.

 

We have cruised numerous times: Alaska, Mediterrean, Mexican Riveria, Panama Canal, approx. 14 day cruises, to name a few and have never had our itinerary changed at the last minute (or before). never had a slow response from customer service, had clean cabins and ship, and felt like valued passengers.

[Planer's Edge]

 

The total lack of comprehension of some of the loyalists here of that basic principle is just numbing sometimes.

 

What is just as numbing is the fact that some people believe they are the only ones with a correct opinion and use the very stale "loyalist" comment to berate others that do not share said opinion.

 

PE

[Globaliser]

So you would have been happier, if they'd cancelled 3/3rds of the ports and just not sailed?

I suspect that nothing less than this would have done: a full refund for the current cruise, plus a free cruise in the future. And then, as Justice for the Disaster, punitive damages of at least $100,000. Maybe per day.

 

Mind you, I'll bet some of the whingers still wouldn't be satisfied.

 

What is abundantly clear from this episode is that there are a lot of people travelling on cruise ships today who really should not be there because they can't handle the inevitable uncertainty in the process of sailing from one place to another. There are good reasons why these clauses have been a standard part of shipping contracts for centuries - nothing is certain when at sea (or when travelling by air). Those who get really upset about missing some ports really ought to be taking their holidays on land, where there is no uncertainty about where the hotel will be located each day.

[Globaliser]

What is just as numbing is the fact that some people believe they are the only ones with a correct opinion and use the very stale "loyalist" comment to berate others that do not share said opinion.

It's got worse than that in some quarters. I've been accused of working for NCL.

 

That's particularly funny, given that I cruise NCL more out of necessity than choice - nevertheless ending up cruising NCL more than all other cruise lines put together.

[halos]

I dont want to beat a dead horse.. BUT

If someone would research old threads, there would be one about 6 months ago when it was first reported Dawn had engine problems. NCL chimed in that there would be no problems sailing to existing ports but they cut the long NYC route. I remember posting that I was considering a Dawn cruise but would never gamble or risk this exact situation. This may not ruin my cruise but I do feel for the guests since they cant get to ports. OBC is nice but I bet most would still want their original cruise back on schedule.

I hate to say "told you so" but cruise lines should not keep running ships with major engine problems. But I know they would lose a fortune of money. But you must be fair to your passengers. You cant have it both ways. You cant tell passengers 6 months ago that everything is fine even though one engine is out and then say OOOPS when things go bad to worse.

You cannot control the weather, accidents or medical emergencies. But you can control basic running needs of your ship. NCL pushed their luck on this one.

They are not the first and definately not the last. I just think it is unfair to attack the passengers who feel wronged.

 

I will applaud you for this.

You made an educated decision. I think it's absolutely fabulous.

I have been aware of the Dawn's issues as well...but went anyway because I don't get freaked at missed ports...but both you and I made choices based on the knowledge we had and how well the information suited our idea of a good (or not good) cruise.

 

I would hope that the people here who have been severley disappointed, especially the posters who seem to be brand spanking new on this thread, will use this board in the future to research before cruising NCL or another line. Usually you can find out when a ship is due for a dry dock on these boards, or if a ship is having issues.

 

The Dawn is the 2nd ship I have taken a chance on, knowing it was limping...the first risk I took was on the Celebrity Infinity (azipod issues).

I was lucky both times, but was totally prepared mentally.

The Celebrity cruise was a Canal Crossing so it was specifically booked for the ports. It would have sucked if something had gone wrong, especially if it had interfered with going through the canal, but we were willing to have a good time no matter what.

 

There is more information here on CC than any cruise line or Travel Agent can or will give anyone....and if these people take the time to research, they will see that this things happens on occasion, on all lines. I think IF you know this ahead of time and make peace with it, it's easier to make the best of a bad situation.

OR you can just say no and make other plans

 

I sailed the CCL Liberty the first week of Dec. There were THREE bridal parties on that ship, complete with huge families.

Three seperate couples and their families made arrangements to get married at some of the ports.

They all had perfect weddings because the cruise was a good one...good weather and no other issues.

BUT as I looked at each of those girls, I shook my head and said to myself,

"You are so dumb."

(OK, the statement was a little more 'colorful' than that in my head)

 

It could have been disasterous.

...unless, of course they had plan 'B's in place. But somehow, I doubt it.

 

Finding Cruise Critic AFTER something goes wrong isn't as great as finding it before hand, but I hope that people use it once they find it, to possibly avoid future disappointment.

 

 

What is just as numbing is the fact that some people believe they are the only ones with a correct opinion and use the very stale "loyalist" comment to berate others that do not share said opinion.

 

 

 

PE

 

 

 

No' date=' the absolute worst is that poster saying this is an [i']opinion.[/i]

Cruises are NOT guaranteed to get to the ports

 

How is that an opinion???

[musicgal]

People don't like being lied to. For awhile now, NCL has shaken a voodoo rattle over Dawn and proclaimed her problems fixed. People have believed them. Yes, their ironclad contract enabled them to blame the passengers for any complaints they might have- "Hey, stupid! It was in the contract you signed. You should learn how to read, you dunce. Oh hey, how about a 10% discount on our next mystery cruise????" - but you can't have it both ways in this connected world. Ask the folks who have the filthiest hotels on TripAdvisor. Folks aren't lining up at these dumps for rooms. They may have their "accidental" tourist, but why not sail on a ship with a better record, whether that be NCL or another line? Sure, stuff happens and CAN happen on any line or ship, but the old adage of "Fool me once, shame on you- fool me twice, shame on me", is especially true when you give up your vacation days to dissembling liars.

When I go to the mailbox and pull out these wonderful descriptions of cruises and their ports of call, I choose a cruise according to the presented "product". Even the cruise lines describe it in the same way. They offer a product. So, yes- they may have the contract stacked so that they don't ever have to live up to their advertising, but that doesn't mean that the consumer has to fall for the lie again. Another reason to purchase travel insurance.

[ike97756]

Ports are not guaranteed ? Very true but NCL voids the waiver we all sign if they do not In Good Faith try and provide the cruise paid for to specific ports. Continuing to operate knowing full well they cannot provide said ports in my OPINION is not acting in good faith. Anyone stating otherwise is stating their OPINION. A Court is the only way to decide which opinion is correct if an individual wanted to take it that far.

 

I can certainly understand those that don't particularly care which port they end up at trying to say "ports aren't guaranteed" covers every situation because in the long run compensation to customers affects the price they have to pay. But it simply isn't legally true and NCL clearly understands this as they offer compensation under certain circumstances.

[Globaliser]

... I choose a cruise according to the presented "product". Even the cruise lines describe it in the same way. They offer a product. So, yes- they may have the contract stacked so that they don't ever have to live up to their advertising ...

I still fail to see this.

 

The advertising says no more than "Here is a list of the ports that we hope to get to." That's all it says; that's all it has ever said - and all experienced cruisers know that.

 

If you read more into the advertising than that, it's your own wishful thinking.

[halos]

People don't like being lied to. For awhile now, NCL has shaken a voodoo rattle over Dawn and proclaimed her problems fixed. People have believed them. Yes, their ironclad contract enabled them to blame the passengers for any complaints they might have- "Hey, stupid! It was in the contract you signed. You should learn how to read, you dunce. Oh hey, how about a 10% discount on our next mystery cruise????" - but you can't have it both ways in this connected world. Ask the folks who have the filthiest hotels on TripAdvisor. Folks aren't lining up at these dumps for rooms. They may have their "accidental" tourist, but why not sail on a ship with a better record, whether that be NCL or another line? Sure, stuff happens and CAN happen on any line or ship, but the old adage of "Fool me once, shame on you- fool me twice, shame on me", is especially true when you give up your vacation days to dissembling liars.

When I go to the mailbox and pull out these wonderful descriptions of cruises and their ports of call, I choose a cruise according to the presented "product". Even the cruise lines describe it in the same way. They offer a product. So, yes- they may have the contract stacked so that they don't ever have to live up to their advertising, but that doesn't mean that the consumer has to fall for the lie again. Another reason to purchase travel insurance.

Again, you should know what you're buying. I can't imagine how travel insurance would help in a situation such as this.

[Jokelady]

Ok here is a new twist...

 

I feel for those that were just on the ship and had to go through what they did. I wouldn't feel much different.

 

Now what about those of us about to sail on the Dawn? Shouldn't we now have a choice for a full refund or be able to move to another ship if we don't feel like sailing on this one and missing ports? Airlines would move us to another plane if it was not running on all it's engines?

 

I quite frankly don't feel comfortable sailing on a ship that is having these many problems. This is not the first time for the Dawn in recent months. It had problems in the Summer too according to CC.

 

My partner and I and 6 children sailed on the Splendor a few weeks before it started to bob in the ocean with no power. That fiasco cost Carnival $56 Million in repairs to get it seaworthy again. I feel for those folks as well.

 

No one likes the idea of booking a trip for Hawaii and ending up in Wisconsin at 30 below zero. I booked this cruise in good faith and paid for 5 ports and expect to get what I paid for. If the ship cannot get there due to mechanical problems that they know about then I feel they are not living up to their end of the bargain. To me this is a classic bait and switch. Mechanical problems are no act of God and it is merely a case of pushing this old doll beyond her breaking point.

 

I would feel a lot better being refunded or put on a ship that has a better track record at present.

 

Jokelady

[OneLuckyMom]

I have to say I am amazed at the number of people that are spouting the contract. This isn't a contract problem, this is a customer service problem, plain and simple. Just because a company has covered their you-know-what's with fine print, doesn't make what they are doing right. People are upset at the way NCL handled the situation, and in most cases their lack of communication or their attitude in the communications (such as the "you could have gotten off the ship before we sailed" line they gave that one person on the cruise reported). And that seems to be consistent across the board with the NCL cruises that have had problems lately - it's the communication that is the problem, not the amount of OBC NCL did or didn't offer. I personally think a more apologetic attitude and a lot more general communication would go a long, long way with most folks and head off a lot of the anger.

 

(And out of curiousity, I just went to check the information my PCC sent me when I booked my cruise. I got my itinerary, which includes in very small print that the terms and conditions are available out on the NCL website. I was not provided with the terms and conditions directly, and I certainly wasn't notified by my PCC that I shouldn't actually **expect** to go to any of the ports listed on my itinerary. Maybe they should spend some more time talking about the terms and conditions, and spend a bit less time trying to hard sell me bad travel insurance.)

 

Now I am neither an NCL fan or basher - I haven't even cuised them yet - I have no skin in the game. But all of this HAS made me reconsider the cruise I have booked in August. I am not a demanding customer - I'm pretty easy going actually - but I believe a company should at least appreciate my business enough not to hide behind a contract.

[Globaliser]

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.

That's a very sweeping statement. I don't believe it's true. It may be true for Germany, but UK legislation doesn't work like that. Equally, I don't believe that Package Travel goes nearly as far as you suggest it does.

[musicgal]

I still fail to see this.

 

The advertising says no more than "Here is a list of the ports that we hope to get to." That's all it says; that's all it has ever said - and all experienced cruisers know that.

 

If you read more into the advertising than that, it's your own wishful thinking.

 

 

Bull. I have a ton of brochures in which the phrase "hope to get to" is quite absent. Cruises are advertised in slick packages which are very high on promise- and actually for the most part, fulfill what they advertise. Some ships are obviously troubled, and nowadays you can't hide that from the public. I would think that if that were my job (to make excuses for bad policy), I'd have to be ashamed of myself.

[musicgal]

Again, you should know what you're buying. I can't imagine how travel insurance would help in a situation such as this.

 

If I see that my vessel is having recurrent problems and bad reviews- and I have purchased "cancel for any reason" trip insurance... I will cancel the trip on the defective ship. Since many cruisers reserve their rooms well in advance, this is a very wise and viable scenario.

[halos]

If I see that my vessel is having recurrent problems and bad reviews- and I have purchased "cancel for any reason" trip insurance... I will cancel the trip on the defective ship. Since many cruisers reserve their rooms well in advance, this is a very wise and viable scenario.

 

You are absolutely right.

That would solve a lot of problems for people with upcoming Dawn cruises.

[Squidward Q Tentacles]

My wife and I will be sailing on her in November, she will be fresh out of dry dock and I hope in complete working order.

[musicgal]

Let's just keep track of Dawn until drydock and see if her problems are fixed.