Port Charges-Class Action Setlement Came today

[Krazy Kruizers]

There are others that I know who have not sailed NCL in years and they got $80 and $90 - full amount of what they listed.

 

Sorry to have stopped in and asked if others got the full amounts they requested.

[newmexicoNita]

There are others that I know who have not sailed NCL in years and they got $80 and $90 - full amount of what they listed.

 

Sorry to have stopped in and asked if others got the full amounts they requested.

If I understand this whole law suit it was based on missed ports, if so, maybe those who got more than you missed more ports or ports with higher port charges. There are many reasons things happen. I think I would just be happy with your little check and forget it. NMNita

[Guest nhrich]

If I understand this whole law suit it was based on missed ports, if so, maybe those who got more than you missed more ports or ports with higher port charges. There are many reasons things happen. I think I would just be happy with your little check and forget it. NMNita

NMNita, the lawsuit was based on items other than port charges being lumped into the port charge amount. That's why the cruise lines have all changed the wording to non-commissionable fares.

 

Rich, ACC

Carefree Vacations

[Polish Falcon]

Fact - NCL, along with other Cruise Lines were CAUGHT overcharging guests for Port Charges. Guests were told that Port Charges were $X and in fact, they were $Y(less). The cruise lines pocketed the difference.

 

They were CAUGHT and had to Settle.

 

All Cruisers have indirectly benefited by this class action suit and new safeguards are now in place to protect Consumers.

 

How can anyone Defend what these Cruise Lines did??

[shoreguy]

Fact - NCL, along with other Cruise Lines were CAUGHT overcharging guests for Port Charges. Guests were told that Port Charges were $X and in fact, they were $Y(less). The cruise lines pocketed the difference.

 

They were CAUGHT and had to Settle.

 

All Cruisers have indirectly benefited by this class action suit and new safeguards are now in place to protect Consumers.

 

How can anyone Defend what these Cruise Lines did??

 

They sure have :confused: We now have something called non-com which is the same thing just not called port charges that way they can legally put all the same things: margin, fuel surcharges, port charges and other thing they want.

 

Even when they were over stating the port charges the bottom line was clear. If the total cost did not meet your expectations nobody had to book.

 

I never felt ripped off. I new what the total price was and I paid it.

[johnql]

How can anyone Defend what these Cruise Lines did??

I can't speak for anyone else, but here's how I see it. Yes, the cruise lines were wrong. And it's good that they were caught. But so what? It wasn't that big a deal. It's equivalent to police going on a ticketing blitz while more serious crimes are being committed. In other words, yes, they're technically right to go after scofflaws, but when it comes to priorities, most people would prefer to see more heinous offenders prosecuted.

 

To put it in context, as far as cruise lines are concerned, I was far more concerned about the garbage-dumping that was going on years ago. When the cruise lines were caught and fined for that, I was pleased. I believe that was a much more important issue than the measly $10 or so that I was overcharged, especially when I was looking at a bottom line cost to begin with. I didn't lose any sleep over it then and I won't lose any sleep over it now.

[sunshine 229]

I can't speak for anyone else, but here's how I see it. Yes, the cruise lines were wrong. And it's good that they were caught. But so what? It wasn't that big a deal. It's equivalent to police going on a ticketing blitz while more serious crimes are being committed. In other words, yes, they're technically right to go after scofflaws, but when it comes to priorities, most people would prefer to see more heinous offenders prosecuted.

 

To put it in context, as far as cruise lines are concerned, I was far more concerned about the garbage-dumping that was going on years ago. When the cruise lines were caught and fined for that, I was pleased. I believe that was a much more important issue than the measly $10 or so that I was overcharged, especially when I was looking at a bottom line cost to begin with. I didn't lose any sleep over it then and I won't lose any sleep over it now.

 

I agree, this wasn't a biggie. It was a small piece of dishonesty that was caught and now those who perpetrated this small dishonesty have been forced to refund the ill gotten funds. It was never a big thing IMO just something that needed to be done to make sure that those doing business need to know that someone is keeping track of their actions and to demonstrate that sometimes lying or cheating will come back to haunt you.

 

The only thing in this thread that got big, IMO, is the reaction of some posters who found it necessary to revile the lawyers and principles involved in this case and every other class action law suit ever prosecuted.

 

And, to be honest, my reaction to those posters got kind of big too:o

[serendipity1499]

QUOTE=nhrich]NMNita, the lawsuit was based on items other than port charges being lumped into the port charge amount. That's why the cruise lines have all changed the wording to non-commissionable fares.

 

 

Rich, ACC

 

Carefree Vacations

 

Sorry about the confusion..I should have explained it in my Original post..The law suit had nothing to do with missed ports or other charges being lumped with port charges .. It strictly had to do with ExcessivePort charges that theCruise Lines were overcharging up until 1997..

 

Re the Class Action Suit- On Sept. 9, 1996 a Law Suit was filed in Dade County against Costa & Norwegian Cruise Lines (Case No 96-8076) for overcharging of Port Charges?.. It was changed to a Class Action Law Suit & specifically covered the overcharging of Port Charges for the period 1992 to 1997..On Nov. 30, 2004 the Court held a settlement hearing & approved the settlement of the Class Action Suit..

 

Also on Nov. 30, 2004 The Court imposed an injunction against, Carnival, Princess, Celebrity, & Royal Carib. which prohibit them from overcharging on Port Charges..

 

Re our Settlement Checks- Last year, we were given a choice of $7.50 per person for each NCL cruise taken in 1995-1996 or an NCL voucher for a future cruise as per the Court's Settlement decision...We never expected to book the “Crown” trip this year, so chose the $7.50 each. My check was for $7.50 & DH’s was $5.00, an obvious processing error, but we’re not going to pursue it. Those who were on cruises from 92 to 94 were to get $5.00 or an NCL voucher. According to the court papers I have, the District Court in Miami held the settlement hearing & stated that was all the passengers were entitled to for each cruise. Have no idea where the $60 to $90 came from or what you mean about not getting the full amount, as it is not part of this particular settlement...

 

Re the Orient vouchers- Star Cruises, Ltd is an associate member of the Genting Group (No. 1 holding company in Malaysia). Star Cruises Ltd, is the third largest cruise operator in the world & comprises Orient Lines, NCL America, Norwegian Cruise Lines, & Cruise Ferries, with a combined fleet of 20 ships in service... The voucher on Orient Lines enclosed with our checks, is strictly a Sales tool, and has nothing to do with the settlement..

 

Also agree with Johnql- The dumping of garbage by ALL ships (cargo & cruise) years ago was heinous & more important than our measly settlement..But who knows I might win a million in the slots with this $12.00 & can contribute more $$ than we do now, to environmental causes...

Wow..Never expected to cause such a ruckus folks..:) Happy cruising..

[shoreguy]

serendipity1499

 

FYI - your posts are almost unreadable - tiny font - light green :cool:

[newmexicoNita]

Fact - NCL, along with other Cruise Lines were CAUGHT overcharging guests for Port Charges. Guests were told that Port Charges were $X and in fact, they were $Y(less). The cruise lines pocketed the difference.

 

They were CAUGHT and had to Settle.

 

All Cruisers have indirectly benefited by this class action suit and new safeguards are now in place to protect Consumers.

 

How can anyone Defend what these Cruise Lines did??

And who is defending them? None of us think deceit is honest or right but as has been said, you agree to pay a certain amount and it really doesn't make a whole lot of difference where the money goes. Actually the question in my mind is why is one so upset over not getting exactly what she thought she would when probably, prior to the letter she never thought about it at all?

[sunshine 229]

And who is defending them?

 

Right, you're not defending the cruiseline, you're just reviling those who did something about the cruislines dishonesty and saying (repeatedly) that you would never stoop so low as to part of a case like this.:rolleyes:

[newmexicoNita]

Right, you're not defending the cruiseline, you're just reviling those who did something about the cruislines dishonesty and saying (repeatedly) that you would never stoop so low as to part of a case like this.:rolleyes:

where in the heck did you get the idea I said I would never stoop so low? I just probably wouldn't bother for a few dollars. Never at anytime have I be-littled anyone for this. You are putting words in my mouth!!! Like many of us, I am sure you get these forms to fill out every so often regarding class action suits from various companies. I would guess we get 3 or 4 a year and yes, we did respond to one. A couple of times we have gotten checks without responding. DH got one from AmEx I think, not too long ago: the amount was something like $5.00. My main point here is: she never would have gotten anything if she hadn't have been asked to fill out forms or whatever and sign. It doesn't seem like it's makes a lot of sense to drell on how much it was. If you expect $1000 and get $50 that's worth worrying about. My other concern is the consumer gets almost nothing and the lawyers get rich. Tell me where this is be-littling anyone. NMNita

[seahorse]

Nita,

 

Put down the shovel.;)

 

 

I am reading the new book...Devils On The Deep Blue Sea.......I am about half way through..........Here is a quote by John Maxton-Graham, one of the best authors about the history of cruise ships and the industry.

 

"In this riveting book about the cruise indusry, Kristoffer Garin investigates the hard realities behind cruising`s sunny facade. Qwners will wince, crews will probably not read it,ships will keep sailing and profits will soar. Required reading for discerning passengers."

 

Everyone who has a passion for ceuising should read it. I can`t put it down.

[serendipity1499]

serendipity1499

 

FYI - your posts are almost unreadable - tiny font - light green :cool:

 

Sorry shoreguy. I frequently get cut off from my IP (like just now) & they can’t seem to find out why..So usually type my posts into WORD size 12 (Times New Roman) then copy & paste it into CC..This is what I’m doing now..My font in this post seems to be exactly like yours size 3 but not as large as nhrich’s.. Can you tell me what is the best font & size to use in CC..Do I have to resize each time when using the copy & paste method..r is..

 

 

Sorry everyone, but did not realize the color was hard to read..(On my screen it looks great) but will not use it any more..

 

 

newmexiconita says..Actually the question in my mind is why is one so upset over not getting exactly what she thought she would when probably, prior to the letter she never thought about it at all? unquote..

 

I hope you are not refering to me..I never said I was upset anywhere..Just laughed about it & said I would put it back into the slots..

[Zeno]

I can't speak for anyone else, but here's how I see it. Yes, the cruise lines were wrong. And it's good that they were caught. But so what? It wasn't that big a deal. It's equivalent to police going on a ticketing blitz while more serious crimes are being committed. In other words, yes, they're technically right to go after scofflaws, but when it comes to priorities, most people would prefer to see more heinous offenders prosecuted.

 

To put it in context, as far as cruise lines are concerned, I was far more concerned about the garbage-dumping that was going on years ago. When the cruise lines were caught and fined for that, I was pleased. I believe that was a much more important issue than the measly $10 or so that I was overcharged, especially when I was looking at a bottom line cost to begin with. I didn't lose any sleep over it then and I won't lose any sleep over it now.

 

I am in complete agreement. When I read about cruiselines dumping garbage I almost gave up cruising. Being over-charged $10 just does not get me worked up.

[newmexicoNita]

Nita,

 

Put down the shovel.;)

 

 

I am reading the new book...Devils On The Deep Blue Sea.......I am about half way through..........Here is a quote by John Maxton-Graham, one of the best authors about the history of cruise ships and the industry.

 

"In this riveting book about the cruise indusry, Kristoffer Garin investigates the hard realities behind cruising`s sunny facade. Qwners will wince, crews will probably not read it,ships will keep sailing and profits will soar. Required reading for discerning passengers."

 

Everyone who has a passion for ceuising should read it. I can`t put it down.

I have about a thousand books I need to read in our latest collection (well certainly I am exagerating) but when I finish the next 3 or 4 I will look for it. Now you want me to put down my shovel and Shoreguy wants me to stop digging: what fun is left? LOL

[Globaliser]

Right, you're not defending the cruiseline, you're just reviling those who did something about the cruislines dishonesty and saying (repeatedly) that you would never stoop so low as to part of a case like this.:rolleyes:

I wouldn't revile someone who acted to stop this practice because, despite its triviality, it shouldn't have been happening and they don't like it.

 

I do, however, detest those who act to stop this practice simply because it is a way of lining their own pockets. And that is what motivates this type of lawyer.

 

I know; I see enough of them around me.

[sunshine 229]

I wouldn't revile someone who acted to stop this practice because, despite its triviality, it shouldn't have been happening and they don't like it.

 

I do, however, detest those who act to stop this practice simply because it is a way of lining their own pockets. And that is what motivates this type of lawyer.

 

I know; I see enough of them around me.

 

I agree it would be nice if people did things from purely altruistic motives and expected nothing in return but in this real world I think that is a bit much to expect.

 

I'm sure that it involved a lot of time and effort to send out and then compile all the notifications and question sheets involved in this case. In addition I'm sure lawyers time was spent on arguements etc. I don't think it is reasonable to believe that this should all be done for free.

 

In addition, I think lawyers who do this are taking a gamble that they will get anything out of it, if the case is not successful, who would they bill for all the time they put into it? So, in the cases where they are successful I don't think it is out of line for them to make a good amount of money out of the settlement. Let's not forget, in most of these cases the plaintiffs would not see any of their money back and the defendants would not be brought to account at all if it were not for the lawyers taking the chance.

 

I'm willing to admit that at times the amount the lawyers make might seem excessive but then so do the amounts professional atheletes or movie stars make so I don't see any need to single these lawyers out as cold hearted sharks or money grabbers.

 

Hey, just my opinion and you are certainly entitled to have a different one.:)

[Globaliser]

I don't think it is reasonable to believe that this should all be done for free.

Quite so.

 

But what happens in these cases is that the lawyers clean up. And they're the only people who clean up. The individuals for whom they technically act get virtually nothing, and the cruise line pays out virtually nothing compared to the overall size of their business.

 

It would be different if the lawyers just set an hourly rate at the beginning and only charged that amount. That's fair, and that's the way I work. But somehow, I don't think these class action types would be prepared to do that ...

[sunshine 229]

Quite so.

 

But what happens in these cases is that the lawyers clean up. And they're the only people who clean up. The individuals for whom they technically act get virtually nothing, and the cruise line pays out virtually nothing compared to the overall size of their business.

 

It would be different if the lawyers just set an hourly rate at the beginning and only charged that amount. That's fair, and that's the way I work. But somehow, I don't think these class action types would be prepared to do that ...

 

I don't mean to get personal but I don't know for sure how all these cases work so maybe you can explain.

 

You say you get paid for a set hourly wage. I assume that means you have a set per hour fee and keep track of how many hours you put into a case. Then, at the end you bill the client for the number of hours booked. If that is true, then what happens if you work on a case that you do not win? Do you still get paid? Or do you go home having spent all those hours of time and having nothing to show for it?

 

Since these class action lawyers have no specific client, it is my understanding that if they do not win some sort of settlement they don't get paid. Am I correct about that?

 

If I have this wrong, please explain. If I have it right, then I can see why they would expect to get paid more than a set hourly rate.

 

Like in making investments, the higher risk investments have to offer the potential for higher returns or no one would bother with them.

 

And don't forget that the successful class action suits will also have to carry the time the lawyers spend on the unsuccessful cases.

[Globaliser]

You say you get paid for a set hourly wage. I assume that means you have a set per hour fee and keep track of how many hours you put into a case. Then, at the end you bill the client for the number of hours booked. If that is true, then what happens if you work on a case that you do not win? Do you still get paid? Or do you go home having spent all those hours of time and having nothing to show for it?

Normally, I charge whether I win or lose.

 

I am allowed to take a case on the basis that if I win, I can charge extra but if I lose, I get nothing. However, this is still based on my normal rates - if I win, I can charge an extra percentage of my normal rate. Both the normal rates and the percentage uplift must be agreed in advance, and both are subject to tight control by the court as well. I am not permitted to charge a percentage of the "winnings".

 

You're right that the uplift is intended to cover the cases which I don't win, to make it economic to gamble like this.

 

However, I don't like to do any work on that basis and won't do it if I don't have to. The reason is that whenever I take a case on that basis, I run the risk of a serious conflict of interest with my client. Many such cases get to the point where the client's interest is probably best served by continuing with the gamble to get some more, because more is likely to be forthcoming from the other side - but the lawyer's interest is in getting the client to settle now so that the lawyer can guarantee that he will get paid, plus get the uplift as well.

 

These class action lawyers take that principle to its ultimate extreme. It's pretty much all a question of how much they can get, and s*d the client. It's not quite as bad here where the lawyers can only charge a percentage of their normal fees, rather than a percentage of the "winnings", but it's already quite bad enough. And we know what goes on in some places in the US ...

[sunshine 229]

Normally, I charge whether I win or lose.

 

I am allowed to take a case on the basis that if I win, I can charge extra but if I lose, I get nothing. However, this is still based on my normal rates - if I win, I can charge an extra percentage of my normal rate. Both the normal rates and the percentage uplift must be agreed in advance, and both are subject to tight control by the court as well. I am not permitted to charge a percentage of the "winnings".

 

You're right that the uplift is intended to cover the cases which I don't win, to make it economic to gamble like this.

 

However, I don't like to do any work on that basis and won't do it if I don't have to. The reason is that whenever I take a case on that basis, I run the risk of a serious conflict of interest with my client. Many such cases get to the point where the client's interest is probably best served by continuing with the gamble to get some more, because more is likely to be forthcoming from the other side - but the lawyer's interest is in getting the client to settle now so that the lawyer can guarantee that he will get paid, plus get the uplift as well.

 

These class action lawyers take that principle to its ultimate extreme. It's pretty much all a question of how much they can get, and s*d the client. It's not quite as bad here where the lawyers can only charge a percentage of their normal fees, rather than a percentage of the "winnings", but it's already quite bad enough. And we know what goes on in some places in the US ...

 

Thanks for your response. I do see the nice point of possible conflict arising between doing what might be better for the client and doing what will make it more likely that you will get paid, still in some cases clients might not be able to afford to persue legal recourse at all unless they find a lawyer who is willing to work on a contingency basis. Doing things that way at least allows them their day in court.

 

I am not disputing that class action lawyers may get very handsome rewards, maybe even unjustifiable rewards, in the cases they do win. I just object to people who denounce these lawyers as if they were the devil or who seem to prefer letting the original wrong-doer get away with their offense rather than seeing the lawyers make any money. Most of the comments on the early part of the thread weren't. " someone should do something to reduce the amount those lawyers make" but were rather things like, "Class action suits are a waste of time. Nobody gets anything but the lawyers. I wouldn't even participate in that fiasco." ( posted by justaknucklehead).

 

I think lawyers deserve to be paid for their work and in a case where doing the job involves gambling that they may not be paid at all, I think they deserve some sort of premium for taking on the uncertainty.

 

Also, class action lawyers are not the only ones motivated by the chance to make big dollars. What about pharmaceutical companies who spend millions of dollars researching ways to reduce wrinkles but won't spend hardly anything to do research on some quite serious diseases because they know there is a huge market for a good wrinkle cream but that serious and debilitating disease affects only relatively few people and so will not be a big profit generator for the company.

[justaknucklehead]

Enough already. Everything has been said and resaid.

[Globaliser]

I am not disputing that class action lawyers may get very handsome rewards, maybe even unjustifiable rewards, in the cases they do win. I just object to people who denounce these lawyers as if they were the devil or who seem to prefer letting the original wrong-doer get away with their offense rather than seeing the lawyers make any money. Most of the comments on the early part of the thread weren't. " someone should do something to reduce the amount those lawyers make" but were rather things like, "Class action suits are a waste of time. Nobody gets anything but the lawyers. I wouldn't even participate in that fiasco."

...

Also, class action lawyers are not the only ones motivated by the chance to make big dollars. What about pharmaceutical companies who spend millions of dollars researching ways to reduce wrinkles but won't spend hardly anything to do research on some quite serious diseases because they know there is a huge market for a good wrinkle cream but that serious and debilitating disease affects only relatively few people and so will not be a big profit generator for the company.

But the fundamental problem is that these class actions are usually only brought because they are driven by the lawyers desire to line their own pockets, and not from any genuine desire either to secure worthwhile benefits for the claimants or from any genuine desire to bring a wrong-doer to account. The claimants and the defendant's wrongdoing are merely ciphers en route to a law firm's profits account. (You can see this very starkly in a case such as this, where the cost of mailing each claimant's cheque or vouchers was probably close to the value of the cheque or voucher sent.) They simply wouldn't happen if the lawyers were being paid on a more rational basis.

 

Even if a defendant has done wrong, it is we as future customers who end up paying for it, whichever way you look at it. I prefer to think that there are better ways of regulating such companies' behaviour and of bringing their misdemeanours to book than class actions which benefit the lawyers involved and nobody else.

 

I also think that there is (or should be) a real difference between lawyers and pharmaceutical companies, to take your example. I agree that there are aspects of commercial behaviour which could equally well be criticised. The difference is that the commercial market has always been just that. But lawyers operate in a field which is infinitely more precious to society. Justice and the court system are a vital part of the machinery that keeps us free. (Every country's constitution makes provision for their protection, but few constitutions declare the people's right to drugs.) These instruments are too important to be turned into yet another gambling market for the players within them.

[sunshine 229]

Even if a defendant has done wrong, it is we as future customers who end up paying for it, whichever way you look at it.

 

Isn't it almost always someone else who ends up paying when someone breaks the rules? Last week I was stopped at a red light. Some young guy in a truck drove into the back of my car. Luckily, no one was injured and the damage was relatively minor. I have a $500 deductible and the repair estimate was $479. The way the insurance industry works here, with 'no fault' insurance, if I file a claim I'll still end up paying for the repair but the guy's insurance rates will probably go up. And, although it shouldn't work this way, since I was in no way at fault, if I have another accident (even if I'm not at fault there either), my rates will probably go up too, since I'll be seen as a bad risk. So here I am out $479 dollars plus the loss of the use of my car for a couple of days because I was doing exactly what I should have been doing waiting for the light to change.

 

I prefer to think that there are better ways of regulating such companies' behaviour and of bringing their misdemeanours to book than class actions which benefit the lawyers involved and nobody else.

 

I would PREFER to think that too, but right now I don't think it. I think that many commercial enterprises will do what they can get away with and without the fear of things like this law suit they would dare to do even more.

 

 

 

 

I also think that there is (or should be) a real difference between lawyers and pharmaceutical companies, to take your example. I agree that there are aspects of commercial behaviour which could equally well be criticised. The difference is that the commercial market has always been just that. But lawyers operate in a field which is infinitely more precious to society. Justice and the court system are a vital part of the machinery that keeps us free.

IMO it is only more precious to society if it is available to help those who need it. If it is only available to people who have enough money to pay a lawyer, out of their own pocket, to persue their case then it simply becomes a tool of the rich ( individuals or corporations) and is more likely to become a tool of oppression rather than of freedom.

 

These instruments are too important to be turned into yet another gambling market for the players within them.

 

Then the legal system has a lot of work to do. What is a plea bargain or a settlement, but a type of gamble? "We don't think the odds of winning this case are very good so we will take the alternative and let the defendant off for less than he actually did, so we at least get him put away for a while" , or "Should I gamble that the jury will see it my way, and give me what I feel I deserve, or should I take the settlement being offered because it is a sure thing?"

 

No system is perfect, but the whole concept of allowing class action suits in my opinion, is an attempt to protect the rights of the small, individual litigant when faced with a relatively huge and wealthy adversary and to me it is worth it to allow lawyers to take these kind of cases to profit from the work they do. As I said before, maybe the amount of 'profit' is out of line. If so, let's attack that aspect of the system not the whole idea of class action suits.