Do you think NCL owes them anything?

[smeyer418]

The last sentence of the quoted clause of the contract says: " Under any such circumstances the voyage may be altered, shortened, lengthened, or cancelled in whole or part without liability to the Carrier for a refund or

otherwise".

 

The wording "without liability for refund or otherwise" is about as plain as it can be. I'm not suggesting they would go to that extreme, but you can't convince me that only addresses consequential damages. Why include the wording "for refund"? If it's intended to only deny liability for consequential damages it should say just that. If I ever tried to write that type of language into an insurance policy and explained to our attorneys it was only intended to apply to consequential damages, they would still be making snide remarks about my ability to construct policy language 20 years later.

 

 

Florida law I believe(I am not admitted in Florida) would probably not allow them to keep the money. Its an issue on who bears the risk. The insurance companies if the ship doesn't sail at all I am sure would be happy to litigate this with the cruise line. Its not a risk they are willing to take either....

 

You are insured if you miss the ship not if it doesn't sail-unless they go bankrupt and can't repay(although there will be a performance bond to collect from)....

[richstowe]

A gesture is about all it is. If the OBC is $100 per cabin (and I understand the post was modified to eliminate reference to the amount), and there is no fare refund in addition that is insufficient compensation for any cabin costing more than $700 for the week...which means essentially 100% of the cabins. If you had spent, say $2800 for your cabin , missing one day of your cruise has a value of $400, and you are being offered $100 in compensation.

 

Great customer service. :rolleyes:

That's what I thought. :( 100 OBC ? A small joke.

Most amusing the "Hurrah for NCL" comments from the pom pom holders.

 

If people think NCL (or any ship line) is going to offer more down the road, when the fuss has died down, they are kidding themselves.

They will only offer more if they believe it's not worth the hassle in treating their customers badly.

If they believe giving more OBC will make the problem go away, they will offer it.

[CPT Trips]

No you can't because the passengers are only obligated to pay the fare and taxes, and if they do (and we have been on cruises where we didn't spend one dime beyond the fare, plus tips), the cruise line is 100% certain to lose money.

 

revenus less expenses = profit . . . .

 

There are many sources of revenue, each contributing towards profit.

[Dan Askin]

We've been told by an NCL spokeswoman that the line is not disclosing the amount of OBC being issued to Gem passengers. Asked them the reason for the secrecy.

[TPEINC1958]

We've been told by an NCL spokeswoman that the line is not disclosing the amount of OBC being issued to Gem passengers. Asked them the reason for the secrecy.

 

Because they are going to get trashed here no matter what they do.

[njhorseman]

revenus less expenses = profit . . . .

 

There are many sources of revenue, each contributing towards profit.

 

Thank you for the accounting lesson I didn't need. We're not simply talking about how to add up columns of numbers on the two sides of a ledger. It's the broader marketing strategy of how the mass market cruise lines under price their basic product and their expectations that you'll spend a lot of money on their high mark up profit centers, such as alcoholic beverages and shore excursions . It's analogous to retailers advertising "loss leaders" to bring traffic into the store and then surrounding those loss leaders with high profit items you're likely to buy while you're in the store. That bargain two liter bottle of your favorite cola is always going to be placed in close proximity to the pretzels, chips, and dips carrying a huge mark up.

[njhorseman]

We've been told by an NCL spokeswoman that the line is not disclosing the amount of OBC being issued to Gem passengers. Asked them the reason for the secrecy.

 

Because they are going to get trashed here no matter what they do.

 

Of course they don't want to make it public, because that would create a basis for comparison to past actions and establishes expectations for future compensation if a similar situation arises. Fortunately, those of us who belong to Cruise Critic will learn exactly what NCL did when people return from this week's cruise.

 

TPE...if they provided fair compensation we would be praising NCL, not trashing them.

[TPEINC1958]

Talk about unwanted/unneeded lessons. :(

[TPEINC1958]

Of course they don't want to make it public, because that would create a basis for comparison to past actions and establishes expectations for future compensation if a similar situation arises. Fortunately, those of us who belong to Cruise Critic will learn exactly what NCL did when people return from this week's cruise.

 

TPE...if they provided fair compensation we would be praising NCL, not trashing them.

 

It was initially made public but was editted out because within a minute of the announcement, Syd was already berating them for "cheating" the people that paid more for their cabins.

[davesgirl51]

That's what I thought. :( 100 OBC ? A small joke.

Most amusing the "Hurrah for NCL" comments from the pom pom holders.

 

If people think NCL (or any ship line) is going to offer more down the road, when the fuss has died down, they are kidding themselves.

They will only offer more if they believe it's not worth the hassle in treating their customers badly.

If they believe giving more OBC will make the problem go away, they will offer it.

 

<huge sigh of relief> I've waited 60 years to be a cheerleader.:D

[TPEINC1958]

<huge sigh of relief> I've waited 60 years to be a cheerleader.:D

 

Welcome to the squad. ;)

[davesgirl51]

Welcome to the squad. ;)

 

Thanks ! (Do they still sell brown and white saddle shoes with bobby sox?):D

[smeyer418]

It was initially made public but was editted out because within a minute of the announcement, Syd was already berating them for "cheating" the people that paid more for their cabins.

No I gave my opinion....berating is your interpretation of what I wrote...

[smeyer418]

BTW its pretty clear to me that in case of cancellation of the transportation due to weather, a refund is required by US Federal law...

 

SEC. 3. 46 App. U.S.C. 817e (a) No person in the United States shall arrange, offer, advertise, or provide passage on a vessel having berth or stateroom accommodations for fifty or more passengers and which is to embark passengers at United States ports without there first having been filed with the Federal Maritime Commission such information as the Commission may deem necessary to establish the financial responsibility of the person arranging, offering, advertising, or providing such transportation, or in lieu thereof a copy of a bond or other security, in such form as the Commission, by rule or regulation, may require and accept, for indemnification of passengers for nonperformance of the transportation.(emphasis supplied)...

[Whippets]

Thanks ! (Do they still sell brown and white saddle shoes with bobby sox?):D

 

 

 

 

 

I think you can still get the black and white ones!:cool:

[davesgirl51]

Thanks ! (Do they still sell brown and white saddle shoes with bobby sox?):D

 

 

 

 

 

I think you can still get the black and white ones!:cool:

 

LOL. My high school was unique and so were the cheerleaders. There was only one store in town that sold the saddle shoes.;)

[terracool]

The statute describes a bond for default. It does not provide a statutory guarantee or right of action for pax. The parties are still free to contract as desired for non-performance, including weather events. And they do.

 

.

 

BTW its pretty clear to me that in case of cancellation of the transportation due to weather, a refund is required by US Federal law...

 

SEC. 3. 46 App. U.S.C. 817e (a) No person in the United States shall arrange, offer, advertise, or provide passage on a vessel having berth or stateroom accommodations for fifty or more passengers and which is to embark passengers at United States ports without there first having been filed with the Federal Maritime Commission such information as the Commission may deem necessary to establish the financial responsibility of the person arranging, offering, advertising, or providing such transportation, or in lieu thereof a copy of a bond or other security, in such form as the Commission, by rule or regulation, may require and accept, for indemnification of passengers for nonperformance of the transportation.(emphasis supplied)...

[TPEINC1958]

Where is RVDogwhisperer? They were going to report in about any compensation given (or not given) weren't they?

[tears]

That is WONDERFUL to hear. I had faith that NCL would want to keep their loyal customers happy and coming back year after year!

 

I can't wait to leave for my long-awaited cruise to Bermuda on SUNDAY!!!

 

Nadine

 

Me too!

 

Mary ann

[njhorseman]

Where is RVDogwhisperer? They were going to report in about any compensation given (or not given) weren't they?

 

Probably has better things to do, just as the NCL PR rep had better things to do than immediately post here in response to our questions. :D

 

I know I never post on Cruise Critic while I'm on a cruise...I'm too busy enjoying myself.

[smeyer418]

The statute describes a bond for default. It does not provide a statutory guarantee or right of action for pax. The parties are still free to contract as desired for non-performance, including weather events. And they do.

 

.

 

 

no the statute also limits what a cruise line can disclaim. They are not free to contract anyway they want. Have you read the whole statute?

[Dan Askin]

Of course they don't want to make it public, because that would create a basis for comparison to past actions and establishes expectations for future compensation if a similar situation arises. Fortunately, those of us who belong to Cruise Critic will learn exactly what NCL did when people return from this week's cruise.

 

TPE...if they provided fair compensation we would be praising NCL, not trashing them.

 

That's exactly what we said to NCL: One or 20 of Gem's 2,384+ passengers may post/e-mail us the OBC amount, so why the secrecy, especially when Celebrity and Carnival were immediately forthright. As to your point about establishing expectations, I'm wracking my brain to remember a time where we were told by a mega-ship operator, 'yes, passengers will receive compensation, but no, we're not going to tell you the amount.' When we ask about compensation levels, 19 times out 20, we're given the info.

[ripjerry95]

No!

[richstowe]

No!

I like short posts but this is :rolleyes:

[halos]

That's exactly what we said to NCL: One or 20 of Gem's 2,384+ passengers may post/e-mail us the OBC amount, so why the secrecy, especially when Celebrity and Carnival were immediately forthright. As to your point about establishing expectations, I'm wracking my brain to remember a time where we were told by a mega-ship operator, 'yes, passengers will receive compensation, but no, we're not going to tell you the amount.' When we ask about compensation levels, 19 times out 20, we're given the info.

 

This is bizarre, especially consdiering the fact that usually NCL is very Cruise Critic Friendly