NCL Dream fixed

[seahorse]

You are not crazy. Well maybe you are but I read the same release late last night on the site. :D

 

Sounds like someone spoke out of school

 

Oh thank you..........thank you..........at least now my credibility isn`t totally shot:o

 

I rarely start threads and this is going to make me gun-shy.

[newmexicoNita]

You are not crazy. Well maybe you are but I read the same release late last night on the site. :D

 

Sounds like someone spoke out of school

Shoreguy, I didn't see the release last night; are you sure you didn't already have the straw in the giant Martini glass? Of course I couldn't see it, I was at a meeting. LOL

[newmexicoNita]

Oh thank you..........thank you..........at least now my credibility isn`t totally shot:o

 

I rarely start threads and this is going to make me gun-shy.

It would me too, but it looked like it came from the horses mouth. It just goes to show us; we can't believe too much of anything anymore. No one can doubt your intention here; you thought it was good news and you know, it could still be partially true. Let's hope. NMNita

[jmacx]

...by Susan Robinson, NCL Spokeswoman, the problems with the Dream are fixed...

 

This is the same source used in a Seattle news article indicating the 8/1 cruse pax were given free internet access to rearrange travel plans. IF this happened it was never announced on the ship, maybe on a one-by-one basis. Sounds like she is getting bad info from the ship, just like we did.

[KeystoneCruiser]

Can we look at some facts:

1.) NCL Spokesperson Susan Robinson stated that the Dream engines had been repaired and it would return to normal. Press Release witnessed by at least two reliable people on this board: Seahorse and Shoreguy.

 

2.) Marilyncrab calls and is told that the engines have not been fixed and the problems may still lead to further port cancellations.

 

3.) KathyQ calls NCL and is told that "no engines are out" but some unnamed "mechanical problem" is at fault.

 

4.) When Seahorse calls back to confirm the story she is switched from supervisor to supervisor to get answers.

 

 

Some conclusions:

A.) It just goes to show that NCL's Customer Relations office is still following the same policy: Tell the customer what they want to hear. (#1 & 3)

B.) Susan Robinson's press releases aren't accurate. (I stopped believing anything with her name attached to it long ago.)

 

C.) I am happy to report NCL's Customer Relations Office is working as it normally does, inept!

[sunshine 229]

I've been away for a couple of days and I'm wondering is there any more news on this and has anyone heard what the people on board now are being told?

[newmexicoNita]

I've been away for a couple of days and I'm wondering is there any more news on this and has anyone heard what the people on board now are being told?

Nothing recently: I think we all anxious to hear something. NMNita

[Log42]

Some conclusions:

A.) It just goes to show that NCL's Customer Relations office is still following the same policy: Tell the customer what they want to hear. (#1 & 3)

B.) Susan Robinson's press releases aren't accurate. (I stopped believing anything with her name attached to it long ago.)

 

C.) I am happy to report NCL's Customer Relations Office is working as it normally does, inept!

 

Just to clarify, Keystone Cruiser, Customer Relations and Reservations are two very different departments at NCL. The department that was called was Reservations. Customer Relations only handles calls and letters dealing with past sailings. In addition, any press release by Susan Robison is always accurate as of its writing. Of course, everything is always subject to change. That goes for all cruiselines.

[enjoyscruising]

... Of course, everything is always subject to change...

 

No one could say it any better than that!!!

[jmacx]

....any press release by Susan Robison is always accurate as of its writing....

 

Any...Always... Sure seems unlikely and since the info she gave the Seattle papers was wrong so I would think that always does not apply? I realize this was qualified with “at the time it was written” so it is just as correct to say that her releases are not always found to be accurate.

 

 

Much of what has happened with the Dream is about the misinformation or lack of information coming from the line as much as it is about the loss of stop(s), skipping the Inside Passage and additional travel cost incurred by many pax due to delays.

 

 

The have been a number of posters that have said this is the way all lines work however don’t most responsible parents teach their children that the bad behavior of others is no excuse to behave the same way. If we as consumers allow this thinking to prevent us from complaining about poor service then we deserve what we get. As consumers our tools are limited but the things we can do are; to speak out, file complaints with and, where possible, against the firm and withhold our business. Legal actions are often talked about but in reality such a path is outside the means of most and as many have pointed out, probably would not provide any relief.

 

 

This forum allows us the opportunity to tell others what has happened and to exchange information as well as opinions. We do not all agree however it is not whining to complain when treated badly, it is not being petty to complain when the actions of others cause you unexpected expenses and it should not take a PHD in “cruising” to understand all of the ways that the vacation we expected when we booked the cruise may not be the one we actually get. We should not quietly accept such practices.

[SomeBeach]

JMACX......... you stated your opinion very well!! You also stated my opinion.

 

No matter how one likes or dislikes the Dream, this ship has some major problems right now. And to me, "minor mechanical issues" does not equal 2 engines down. JMO

With as little reliable information coming from NCL, future passengers can not know what to expect.

[Don Haynes]

Yes, everyone can complain til the cows come home, but are you actually accomplishing anything as far as the cruise lines are concerned? They only have so many ships, they have booked the ships months in advance, what do you expect them to do if the weather forces a diversion or a ship has mechanical difficulties? Cancel the cruise? Not likely, as I am more disturbed by a cancelled flight than I am a flight that is half a hour late. Its far better to push on, although slowly, missing a port of call and losing some time at others, than cancel a cruise. After all, the ship has built in reduncancy with at least four diesels onboard, and at least two props.

 

Then there is a call for compensation. People act as if there are six ports of call, they are entitled to more than 1/6 of the price of their cruise. Read the contract, the cruise lines don't have to. But they do anyway, and far more than they should. If I was a stock holder I would be very upset with the giving away the profits to a bunch of whiners.

 

Then there is a cry if the ship is going to miss ports of call for upcoming cruises, we ought to be able to cancel the cruise without any penalty. Ouch, this hurts the stockholders the most. They have spent millions in marketing to sell the tickets in the first place, now people want refunds for missing one port of call....

 

On a 10 day cruise, missing the port of call of Sitka amounts to only 2.5 percent of your time on the cruise. Yet, we hear we're never going to cruise this line again! As if the other 97.5 percent of the cruise was ruined by only 2.5 percent. As a stockholder I would insist that any compensation be limited to 2.5 percent of the cruise.

 

Then people miss out on the penalty free cancellation, didn't know the ship was limping, didn't know..... These people want compensation, lots of it....

 

Too much on board credit, nice slices off another cruise....

From a stockholders point of view, ........you get the picture......

 

And for those who claim NCL is negiligent in losing a diesel, knock on wood, your car might not start tomorrow.....

[sunshine 229]

Jmax,

 

I agree. I often see legitimate complaints being labelled as whining. It is as if it is somehow in bad taste to expect to receive value for money and it is some kind of virtue to accept bad treatment in silence.

 

Yes, in life there are times when sacrificing in silence for the good of others is a noble thing to do, however , I don't class it as particularily meritorious to sacrifice in order to assure a better profit margin for a cruise line.

 

I agree that mechanical problems happen but I don't see why it is the cruisers' fault that NCL's ship is not working properly. Maybe NCL should maintain the ships better, maybe the design is faulty and NCL should be turning to the company who produced and sold them the engines to compensate them for the financial hardship brought on NCL by the failure of the engine but in no way that I can see is it the faulty engine the responsibility of the passengers so why shouldn't they be upset when this engine problem causes them to miss ports and in some cases to incur extra inconveinience and expense for missed flights due to late arrivals.

[sunshine 229]

"And for those who claim NCL is negiligent in losing a diesel, knock on wood, your car might not start tomorrow....."

 

You know, you're right, my car might not start tomorrow but if it didn't start, I wouldn't have the nerve to charge someone for not delivering their parcel to the right address because my car didn't start.

My mechanical problems are mine and I wouldn't expect someone who had paid for my services to pay me for non-performance just because MY car didn't start.

 

In the same way,if my car doesn't start and I don't get into work, I don't expect my boss to pay me for the work I didn't do because I couldn't get in because MY car didn't start.

[denali1]

I was in Seward this afternoon on business, and the Dream just docked as I was leaving town. I did not get to talk to any of the passengers, so I don't know what their cruise had been like, or what they knew of the problems.

 

I do know that some of the business people in Seward said the ship was arriving later than it usually does. Several of those folks told me they heard the Dream would not return here next year. I heard similar talk 2 weeks ago in Whittier from some passengers strolling through town.

[jmacx]

... only 2.5 percent. As a stockholder I would insist that any compensation be limited to 2.5 percent of the cruise.

 

...Too much on board credit, nice slices off another cruise....

From a stockholders point of view, ........you get the picture......

 

Interesting math and you have stated the NCL Corporate position quite clearly.

You need a little help with your math. Since we booked a sightseeing trip we MISSED a exactly 28.57%, not the 2.5 you computed. After all we were enticed with 5 stops plus Hubbard Glacier and the Inside Passage, that’s seven promoted attractions. Skipping two (Sitka and Inside Passage) of seven is 28% short of what was promised on our sightseeing cruise. If one does not believe this was a sightseeing trip, just look at what NCL promotes, ports of call, inside passage and many, many (26 pages worth) “tours”.

While some people book a cruise for reasons other than sightseeing I dare say the majority were there for that reason. So asking for 2/7 refund is not unreasonable, after all we accepted the line's offer in good faith and paid in full for what they advertised. They got the money but we did not get the sightseeing we were promised.

Your 2.5% figure affected many passengers that had to rebook their airline and pay the cost of that out of their pocket. I have not seen a post from a single one those pax indicating refund for a missed port addresses their issue. This group incurred a cost that ranged for a low a couple of hundred dollars to one family that reported their cost was around $1,400.

 

It’s too bad you are not as concerned with the plight of these people as you are with the concerns of the stockholders. Oh, I forgot, you consider the pax to be whiners and the poor stockholders need some protection.

[Host CMLA]

I agree that mechanical problems happen but I don't see why it is the cruisers' fault that NCL's ship is not working properly. Maybe NCL should maintain the ships better, maybe the design is faulty and NCL should be turning to the company who produced and sold them the engines to compensate them for the financial hardship brought on NCL by the failure of the engine but in no way that I can see is it the faulty engine the responsibility of the passengers so why shouldn't they be upset when this engine problem causes them to miss ports and in some cases to incur extra inconveinience and expense for missed flights due to late arrivals.

Maybe the engines broke from normal wear and tear and no matter how well maintained they were and how perfect the parts were, things just happen and it's unfortunate. The passengers are upset. NCL is upset. Everyone is upset but they can only get things fixed so fast. Maybe that's the case? Things just happen and everything isn't someone's fault. I'm sure it's no walk in the park for NCL to have these problems right now. And they must be doing everything they can to fix them. Anyway...I understand that passengers are unhappy. It's natural for them to be. I'm not faulting them at all. And I think NCL should be responsible for those passengers last week that missed flights even if they aren't obligated to do anything. They should.

 

I also don't think member Don Haynes meant what you interpreted. I think he was saying that accidents can happen at any time and you can't predict them. But if you had a contract that covered you for a broken down car, then you could cover yourself in the event your car didn't start. ;)

[sunshine 229]

"I also don't think member Don Haynes meant what you interpreted. I think he was saying that accidents can happen at any time and you can't predict them. But if you had a contract that covered you for a broken down car, then you could cover yourself in the event your car didn't start."

 

I agree that he probably did mean that unexpected mechanical problems happen, well, unexpectedly but I still want to point out that if an unexpected mechanical problem happens to my car, causing me to be unable to perform some job that I have committed to doing, I am unlikely to be able to go ahead and charge MY customer for the service I didn't perform.

 

In many cases in fact I am likely to end up performing the job for free or at least at a considerable discount because I let my customer down by not performing it when I had originally agreed to.

 

Since I am not a cruise line I think it is unlikely that I would be able to get my customer to agree to sign a document that said they would pay me a set amount to complete a given job, or some part of that job or a different job altogether, totally at my discretion and that they would have no claim to at least a partial refund if I did not complete the originally contracted job.

 

I know, I know, we all sign those cruise contracts when we book so we all deserve what we get.:(

[Don Haynes]

My math again, if I were a NCL stockholder, which I'm not. 240 hours in 10 days. A six hour port of call as an example. The time of this port of call is only 2.5 percent of the time of the entire cruise. A eight hour port of call would be 3.3 percent of the entire cruise. Frankly, what ever hours, people sleep me on the cruise than what they missed at the one port of call......

[hotspur]

Several of those folks told me they heard the Dream would not return here next year. I heard similar talk 2 weeks ago in Whittier from some passengers strolling through town.

So what are you hoping to imply? NCL published the Dream's 2006 schedule long ago, and they're returning her to her usual summer Baltic itinerary. The Dream was built for the Baltic run, with its folding stack to allow Kiel Canal transit. Business as usual.

[newmexicoNita]

My math again, if I were a NCL stockholder, which I'm not. 240 hours in 10 days. A six hour port of call as an example. The time of this port of call is only 2.5 percent of the time of the entire cruise. A eight hour port of call would be 3.3 percent of the entire cruise. Frankly, what ever hours, people sleep me on the cruise than what they missed at the one port of call......

i know what you meant and I pretty much agree with you. The only legit gripes I have heard that might deserve more than has been offered on from those who had to find new flights last week and had to pay an additional $500 as someone claimed. Even that I do not know was correct, but if it was NCL should pick up the tab. As for Danali and hearing the Dream would not return to Alaska does this surprise anyone? NMNita

[enjoyscruising]

I believe most pax who have been experiencing the problems of Dream are not out for NCL to cancel Dream's cruises...simply some truth-telling and some fairness between how they treat the cruises that are affected.

 

 

 

For several cruises before mine (8/1-11) except the one right before, NCL chose to give $50 pp OBC ($200 per stateroom limit) for missing one port - Sitka.

 

 

 

The cruise right before mine, NCL chose to offer cancellation w/o penalty - to some who may have been contacted. Nothing to those who were not contacted....all for missing one port - Sitka.

 

 

 

For my cruise, NCL again chose to offer cancellation w/o penalty - again to those who may have been contacted. Nothing to those who were not contacted....and this time for missing one port - Sitka,

 

and then came the missing of the awesome Inside Passage (for many this was to have been better than any port)

 

AND a delay which created extreme hardships on many.

 

I believe more should have and most likely will be done for those who make their SINCERE requests to NCL corporate via written correspondence. NCL had to make some fast decisions for the 8/11-22 cruise, so it's not completely over yet until folks start informing on threads such as this what types of response they receive from written correspondence. Time will tell.

 

 

 

For the cruise sailing 8/11-22, NCL chose to offer immediate on-sight cancellation w/o penalty or $300 OBC per stateroom....for missing ports and the delay of embarkation (may I add...they were where they wanted to be, flights had been made, no extreme hardship for embarkation delay other than sitting and waiting).

 

 

 

You’re free to express your concern about NCL’s profit with all the OBC they give, but how much profit do you really think they’re missing out when the OBC can be used for the high-profit trinkets they sell onboard and the high-profit 6-oz. drinks? Corporations have built-in cushions for many situations such as this, not to mention insurance for themselves when it comes to having to rebook flights for those who used those services through NCL. Obligated for flights? - most likely only for those who booked flights through NCL service.

 

 

 

But – as has been stated before…it’s mostly about fairness between cruises.

 

 

 

all the best -

[electricron]

NCL has been giving OBC all along for missing a port. Some people will never be satisified! As for the missed flights on that one cruise, that's what travel insurance is for. Everyone has a chance to buy it. But of course few do. Instead, the look at NCL's pocket book.

By the way, here's what travel insurance covers:

Trip cancellation, interruption and delay

Missed connection

Airline ticket protection

Emergency medical treatment or evacuation

Lost, stolen or damaged baggage or travel documents

Baggage delay

<LI>Accidental Death and Dismemberment

By the way, OBC can't be used for buying alcohol. :eek:

[enjoyscruising]

There was no OBC for the 8/1-11 cruise that missed Sitka …I was there…or the cruise right before.

 

 

 

I don't recall ever suggesting that NCL was obligated to pay for flights missed for those who did not have their flights originally scheduled through NCL. I understand what travel insurance is for and have taken it out on all my cruises.

 

 

 

I have spoken about the unfairness exhibited by NCL for its OBC/lack of OBC for the passengers of the various “engine problem” cruises this summer.

 

 

 

Re what OBC can be used for…sure, one cannot use OBC for alcoholic drinks….but OBC can be used for the small non-alcoholic smoothies (18-20-year olds cannot purchase the smoothie passport intended for 13-17 year olds and must pay full price), soda drinks (fountain drinks are not available on Dream … $1.73 if memory serves me right and sometimes you don’t receive the entire can), and there’s also the virgin drinks which cost. OBC can be used for all those drinks.

[enjoyscruising]

perhaps electricron misunderstood my reference to "insurance for themselves" in my earlier post. I was referring to NCL's errors & omissions insurance that they most likely use to cover themselves for rebooking flights for those who booked flights originally using NCL's flight service. I was responding to the earlier poster re NCL's profit/loss of profit and how they recover.