Room service and to go food

[sparks1093]

NCL made the change, if it was a money grab, then that is their decision. Each and every business out there raises prices, changes policies, etc., to make more money (without telling you why they have made the change or putting a spin on it), why do you expect NCL to be any different than every other company. Seems like folks are more upset that NCL might make some money from this, then they actually are about the actual policy. And since the policy is pretty much unenforceable nor has it been enforced since its inception, pretty much a lot of ado over a policy that isn't being enforced.

 

Yes, they made the change and instead of being honest about it they came up with a lame brained excuse to justify what they did. That I have a real problem with. And just because the policy is unenforceable doesn't lessen the impact of the policy- many will comply because it is expected. And since I am one of the ones that would comply I would forego bringing breakfast in bed to my sweetie and while that isn't a big thing in the overall scheme of things it does lessen the enjoyment of our cruise to the point that I would factor it into our decision about what vacation to book. (And I am also of the mindset that if you aren't going to enforce a policy then you shouldn't have the policy to begin with, whether it's chair hogging or bringing booze onboard or whatever.)

[karoo]

If you're implying that "tens of thousands" of cruise passengers are cheated by this change in policy then you're wrong. Most people prefer to eat in the dining areas. What would you have NCL do? Announce all policy changes and price increases 4 or 6 months in advance of implementation so that anyone who disagrees can cancel their cruise? Should the cruise lines send out emails to everyone who's booked every time they change a price for something? And really now, how many people are going to cancel their cruise vacation because room service is no longer free?

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

 

Of course! At least that way people have choice. It's just dodgy to change a deal once people have booked and payed. FDR lacks integrity. I just don't trust that guy!

[sparks1093]

I never really believed that NCL's new policy was truly motivated by health and safety. But plates & trays in the hallways is a real (not imaginary) issue. I except that there will continue to be plates and trays and will just deal with it.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

If the plates in the hallway are an issue (I have seen them but they don't stay long) then there are two ways to deal with it: 1) reiterate to the staff to attend to the matter timely or 2) tell passengers to leave their plates in the cabin for the steward to deal with. Thinking back the last time we used room service we left the tray in the cabin. When we came back to the cabin the steward had put them in the hall.

[punkincc]

NCL made the change, if it was a money grab, then that is their decision. Each and every business out there raises prices, changes policies, etc., to make more money (without telling you why they have made the change or putting a spin on it), why do you expect NCL to be any different than every other company. Seems like folks are more upset that NCL might make some money from this, then they actually are about the actual policy. And since the policy is pretty much unenforceable nor has it been enforced since its inception, pretty much a lot of ado over a policy that isn't being enforced.

 

 

Wait! I thought we had stipulated that NCL has the "right" to do anything they wish, so that you do not have to point it out every third or fourth post.;).

 

And I am not upset that they make a profit. Otherwise they will be out of business. I would take for granted the occassional increase in DSC and cover charges and fare increases. I would love to spend more dollars on the ship for "enhancements" but I have yet to see any under this management. And I would like to be treated with some respect and like I have a little intellegence along the way. Creating dinner shows like Cirque and Illusionarium with fees was a fantastic idea to increase revenue. ( not FDR's idea of course ). It offered an enhancement to my cruise. It is one of the reasons I have booked three cruises on brand new ships. I did not see threads with thousands of responses complaining about this fee, because many people loved the idea, but no one was "forced" to participate.

 

None of the added fees of late give me any added benefit. And to add insult to injury, the way they have gone about it makes them look bad. To see them nearly ridiculed in a USA Today article stings a little. It's pretty bad when a travel writer's conclusion is "Don't sail with NCL".

Edited May 22, 2015 by punkincc

[CavalierX]

Punkincc is right. It's about the money. NCL wants to make more and it's passengers want to spend less. So they add a fee for room service. Consider this, people. If NCL continues to allow people to take food from the Buffet back to the room there will be twice or 3 times as many people doing that to avoid paying room service fees. That will result in far more dirty dishes and uneaten food (without trays) cluttering up the hallways. NCL had to change the policy to AVOID a Health & Safety problem. People have complained about being "forced" to pay for room service. Nobody is "forced" to eat in their room. There are lots of nice, comfortable places to eat on the ship. It is perfectly alright to eat in your room, if you want to, but you should do so according to the ship's rules.

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

So NCL instituted a new service fee that they fear might create a problem, so to avoid the problem -- one that has not even appeared -- they created a new policy that will reduce the freedom, convenience and enjoyment of some of their guests. In order to avoid a problem that might result from a new charge that they imposed on something that used to be complimentary. In other words: they are deliberately causing a negative impact on the enjoyment of their customers to make some extra money. And lying through their teeth about the reason.

 

Hell, that's exactly what we've been saying all this time. :(

[NLH Arizona]

Yes, they made the change and instead of being honest about it they came up with a lame brained excuse to justify what they did. That I have a real problem with. And just because the policy is unenforceable doesn't lessen the impact of the policy- many will comply because it is expected. And since I am one of the ones that would comply I would forego bringing breakfast in bed to my sweetie and while that isn't a big thing in the overall scheme of things it does lessen the enjoyment of our cruise to the point that I would factor it into our decision about what vacation to book. (And I am also of the mindset that if you aren't going to enforce a policy then you shouldn't have the policy to begin with, whether it's chair hogging or bringing booze onboard or whatever.)

I have a question, if they would have put on their website on May 1st that food can no longer be taken from the restaurants or buffet and said that they would begin enforcing the policy August 1st, would you still have an issue? This is what I think they should have done, with no explanation as to why they are putting the policy into effect, because they really don't owe anyone that explanation, in my opinion. Some cereal companies and pasta companies never told anyone that they reduced the amount of product in their boxes, but kept the boxes the same size so we wouldn't notice or the body wash company I purchase from who changed the size of their bottle minimally, so that no one would notice, but kept the price the same. All these companies (not to mention many more) do this to make money or money grab.

 

I agree, NCL, in addition to their communication, has a real issue with enforcing their policies. If you don't intend to enforce them, then don't have them.

[Cruise4Real]

If you're implying that "tens of thousands" of cruise passengers are cheated by this change in policy then you're wrong. Most people prefer to eat in the dining areas. What would you have NCL do? Announce all policy changes and price increases 4 or 6 months in advance of implementation so that anyone who disagrees can cancel their cruise? Should the cruise lines send out emails to everyone who's booked every time they change a price for something? And really now, how many people are going to cancel their cruise vacation because room service is no longer free?

 

Yes, people should have been given the option to cancel without penalty. I certainly think the cruise line should have given at least 3 months notice, I believe that's the longest penalty phase (for suites) on NCL (?). I understand that UK bookings (maybe others?) can't ever cancel without penalty -- NCL could have made some other accommodation for them, and should have.

 

NCL did send out emails about the increase in DSC, and gave passengers the option of avoiding the increase by pre-paying. New bookings were not given this protection. This provides a model for how to deal with these things (even though it wasn't a complete "grandfathering," since you had to pre-pay to get the DSC rate current at booking, as opposed to being able to pay that rate after boarding, as previously) and shows that somebody, somewhere at NCL considers the issues of "giving notice" in a "timely fashion," etc.

 

But ever since then, the changes and new fees have rolled out without ANY notice whatsoever. NONE! This is beyond appalling behavior. They haven't ever put out a press advisory in advance of any of these changes (okay, I think they might have for the 3% increase in bar service gratuity and the approx. 7% increase in beverage prices?). They make changes on board, social media flips out, and a week later they issue an utterly masticated yet still incomprehensible sentence or two that explains nothing and/or is rightfully waved off as pathetic corporate spin.

Edited May 22, 2015 by Cruise4Real

[teriwinkle]

I'm sure it's been said before, but, whether we use room service or not, this is a part of going on a cruise that is a special part of what going on a cruise is about. FREE ROOM SERVICE. NO CHARGE! Most land vacations, even all inclusive, like Sandals or Beaches, etc. would not give you room service. Some have a light breakfast delivery. We used to go to Sandals, but discovered that cruising had this luxury and less expensive.

 

As people keep discovering this new change in policy, this thread will keep going on, so I hope that those that have been here from the beginning have some patience with seeing the same complaints, because it will not end nor should it! When something is wrong or disappoints us, it's very hard to "get over.":(:(

My sentiments exactly!

[CavalierX]

And really now, how many people are going to cancel their cruise vacation because room service is no longer free?

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Not as many as would gladly cancel their upcoming cruises because they simply don't like being jerked around and lied to. I'd have done it myself, for exactly those reasons, if I wasn't beyond the final payment date already. :mad:

[NLH Arizona]

Wait! I thought we had stipulated that NCL has the "right" to do anything they wish, so that you do not have to point it out every third or fourth post.;).

 

And I am not upset that they make a profit. Otherwise they will be out of business. I would take for granted the occassional increase in DSC and cover charges and fare increases. I would love to spend more dollars on the ship for "enhancements" but I have yet to see any under this management. And I would like to be treated with some respect and like I have a little intellegence along the way. Creating dinner shows like Cirque and Illusionarium with fees was a fantastic idea to increase revenue. ( not FDR's idea of course ). It offered an enhancement to my cruise. It is one of the reasons I have booked three cruises on brand new ships. I did not see threads with thousands of responses complaining about this fee, because many people loved the idea, but no one was "forced" to participate.

 

None of the added fees of late give me any added benefit. And to add insult to injury, the way they have gone about it makes them look bad. To see them nearly ridiculed in a USA Today article stings a little. It's pretty bad when a travel writer's conclusion is "Don't sail with NCL".

Why do you ask the same question on every post.;)

 

So you think that everyone has to love an idea that NCL does that includes a fee. You really think that any added fee should give everyone a benefit. Just tell me how a company stays in business, if they have to sit there and try to come up with ideas to make additional revenue and then decide if it is going be beneficial to every single person on their ships. They could raise fares, but not everyone would be happy with that, so how do you think they are going to raise their revenue without raising fares where it will be a benefit to all their passengers. The only way for them to raise their revenue, without raising fares, is to raise the price of existing products or charge new fees for those existing products. Which products would you suggest that they raise, but keep in mind it has to benefit everyone.

[CavalierX]

Should the cruise lines send out emails to everyone who's booked every time they change a price for something?

 

You know that's exactly what NCL did regarding the increase in daily gratuities, right? I got an email about it a couple of months before it changed, giving me the option to pre-pay at the old rate before the change was actually made.

Edited May 22, 2015 by CavalierX

[sparks1093]

I have a question, if they would have put on their website on May 1st that food can no longer be taken from the restaurants or buffet and said that they would begin enforcing the policy August 1st, would you still have an issue? This is what I think they should have done, with no explanation as to why they are putting the policy into effect, because they really don't owe anyone that explanation, in my opinion. Some cereal companies and pasta companies never told anyone that they reduced the amount of product in their boxes, but kept the boxes the same size so we wouldn't notice or the body wash company I purchase from who changed the size of their bottle minimally, so that no one would notice, but kept the price the same. All these companies (not to mention many more) do this to make money or money grab.

 

I agree, NCL, in addition to their communication, has a real issue with enforcing their policies. If you don't intend to enforce them, then don't have them.

 

Yes, I would still have an issue with that policy because as I've said I do like to bring breakfast in bed to my sweetie on our cruises (not a big issue but something that would be taken into consideration). We don't order enough from room service for the fee to be an issue in and of itself. I also have an issue with the perceived direction Del Rio wants to take NCL. Of course if the price was right we would still cruise with NCL and just deal with the policy, but for the price to be right it would have to be several hundred less than the competition's price (don't see that happening but anything is possible).

[CavalierX]

Just tell me how a company stays in business, if they have to sit there and try to come up with ideas to make additional revenue and then decide if it is going be beneficial to every single person on their ships.

 

By balancing profit with customer satisfaction. You seem not to understand that no business can possibly survive for long without satisfied customers. Customer satisfaction drives repeat business, on which service-oriented industries like cruise lines sink or swim (so to speak). NCL has gone too far out of balance towards the profit side of the equation with this move, and the only way they will seek to regain it is if we, their customers, let them know that they have done so.

Edited May 22, 2015 by CavalierX

[Cruise4Real]

I have a question, if they would have put on their website on May 1st that food can no longer be taken from the restaurants or buffet and said that they would begin enforcing the policy August 1st, would you still have an issue? This is what I think they should have done, with no explanation as to why they are putting the policy into effect, because they really don't owe anyone that explanation, in my opinion. Some cereal companies and pasta companies never told anyone that they reduced the amount of product in their boxes, but kept the boxes the same size so we wouldn't notice or the body wash company I purchase from who changed the size of their bottle minimally, so that no one would notice, but kept the price the same. All these companies (not to mention many more) do this to make money or money grab.

 

I agree, NCL, in addition to their communication, has a real issue with enforcing their policies. If you don't intend to enforce them, then don't have them.

 

That to me would be the fair way to do it. I am sure that people would still not like the policy, and some would still feel trapped (by having made other travel arrangements or taken time off work or coordinated with friends and family, etc.), but I can't help but feel there would be both less uproar, and that the anger would be more surface and evaporate sooner.

 

I give you a recent success for NCL, which is the way they handled the beverage increase in connection with UBP. When we first heard that they were raising drink prices, there was immediate response, fueled by (deserved) cynicism -- ah, got it, they sold a bunch of cruises with UBP, so now they're going to cheapen that perk by restricting what you get for free.

 

But they pretty quickly (maybe simultaneously? can't remember) raised the limit on UBP drinks by a buck, which exactly equaled the 7 percent beverage increase and the 3 percent auto-grat increase. The nascent grumbling pretty much instantly vanished. NCL took care of the passengers with UBP (and I think around the same time may have added the additional perk by subtracting $11 from very high priced drinks and only requiring pax to pay the difference). This is how to make changes without getting everybody in an uproar. You grandfather in the amenities that people booked with (and in fact which induced them to book).

 

You can just imagine the uproar if all those who'd booked with UBP HAD found their perk significantly, er, watered down. We'd still be fighting that one today. Somebody at NCL made the right call on that. But I bet you it was a close one, with lots of pressure from (my total guess) the VERY TOP to figure out how to pull another lever and screw the poor slobs who actually thought they'd be getting soused all day long for free. Etc.

[NLH Arizona]

That to me would be the fair way to do it. I am sure that people would still not like the policy, and some would still feel trapped (by having made other travel arrangements or taken time off work or coordinated with friends and family, etc.), but I can't help but feel there would be both less uproar, and that the anger would be more surface and evaporate sooner.

 

I give you a recent success for NCL, which is the way they handled the beverage increase in connection with UBP. When we first heard that they were raising drink prices, there was immediate response, fueled by (deserved) cynicism -- ah, got it, they sold a bunch of cruises with UBP, so now they're going to cheapen that perk by restricting what you get for free.

 

But they pretty quickly (maybe simultaneously? can't remember) raised the limit on UBP drinks by a buck, which exactly equaled the 7 percent beverage increase and the 3 percent auto-grat increase. The nascent grumbling pretty much instantly vanished. NCL took care of the passengers with UBP (and I think around the same time may have added the additional perk by subtracting $11 from very high priced drinks and only requiring pax to pay the difference). This is how to make changes without getting everybody in an uproar. You grandfather in the amenities that people booked with (and in fact which induced them to book).

 

You can just imagine the uproar if all those who'd booked with UBP HAD found their perk significantly, er, watered down. We'd still be fighting that one today. Somebody at NCL made the right call on that. But I bet you it was a close one, with lots of pressure from (my total guess) the VERY TOP to figure out how to pull another lever and screw the poor slobs who actually thought they'd be getting soused all day long for free. Etc.

So, how long a notice should NCL give their passengers in policy change?

 

I think the difference between your example and the room service fee/not taking food to the cabins, is that folks had already purchased the UBP and since it was a purchase, they had to make it right for them, because legally (I believe in the UK) they were up against some pretty strict laws (at least this was what those in the UK were saying when Celebrity raise the price of their drinks before they raised their limits on their beverage package).

[LoveyHowell]

So, how long a notice should NCL give their passengers in policy change?

 

If NCL were going to change something from complimentary to charging a fee, it seems like they should send notice out at that time. Everyone cruises at a different time, so when the policy is changed notice should be issued.

 

If this were all above board NCL would not have any qualms about notifying passengers with money on the line and allowing them to opt out without penalty if they felt they needed to as their purchased vacation had materially changed. That's the ethical thing to do.

 

I am sure you will go off now about how businesses aren't required to be ethical, yadda yadda.

[swedish weave]

So, how long a notice should NCL give their passengers in policy change?

 

I think the difference between your example and the room service fee/not taking food to the cabins, is that folks had already purchased the UBP and since it was a purchase, they had to make it right for them, because legally (I believe in the UK) they were up against some pretty strict laws (at least this was what those in the UK were saying when Celebrity raise the price of their drinks before they raised their limits on their beverage package).

 

There is no difference in the room service fee/ taking food to cabin and the UBP.

 

Neither of ths items were in effect when most people booked the cruise.

 

Your example is flawed,

[swedish weave]

I think everyone has agreed that they did a bad job in implementing the offer. The "taking food back to the cabins" policy is not being enforced, with regard to the buffet. Wonder if they are not enforcing it, because of the bad way they implemented the room service charge....only time will tell, if this is the case or they have figured out that the policy is enforceable and it will go away.

 

Of course, some passengers have the right to be wary of any company and they can try to pressure them into changing their policy or, yes, they can ship out to another company.

 

The advice that you are promoting to go to another company is costly and not the choice of many of us who have booked and cannot recoup our costs. Are you willing to back up your advice with compensation to those who choose to follow it.

 

Apparently my suggestion to go to another website so we can discuss this matter without constant nagging about "going to another cruise line is not acceptable to you even though it would cost nobody a nickel or dime.

Edited May 22, 2015 by swedish weave

[Travelcat2]

Why do you ask the same question on every post.;)

 

So you think that everyone has to love an idea that NCL does that includes a fee. You really think that any added fee should give everyone a benefit. Just tell me how a company stays in business, if they have to sit there and try to come up with ideas to make additional revenue and then decide if it is going be beneficial to every single person on their ships. They could raise fares, but not everyone would be happy with that, so how do you think they are going to raise their revenue without raising fares where it will be a benefit to all their passengers. The only way for them to raise their revenue, without raising fares, is to raise the price of existing products or charge new fees for those existing products. Which products would you suggest that they raise, but keep in mind it has to benefit everyone.

 

You make many good points. It is a shame that other posters don't take the time to think about them before attacking. Please continue posting.

 

I am still attempting not to post but do want to respond to a couple of points. Debating an issue is one thing -- name-calling is another. It is also obvious that some posters are not even reading what is being written. Words are being twisted. When I mentioned that I have met Mr. Del Rio, posters decided that I was one of his best friends and that we are discussing NCL and these threads. Although nothing could be further from the truth, truth does not really seem to matter.

 

In any case, I would like to repeat two of NLH Arizona's questions and perhaps someone will think about them before responding.

 

1. Which products would you suggest that they raise, but keep in mind it has to benefit everyone?

 

2. I'm changing this question a bit...... if NCL had announced to everyone that these changes would take effect August 15 (or even October 15th), would you be more accepting of the changes?

Edited May 22, 2015 by Travelcat2

[garnet115]

There is no difference in the room service fee/ taking food to cabin and the UBP.

 

Neither of ths items were in effect when most people booked the cruise.

 

Your example is flawed,

 

I have to disagree. There is a key difference between changing something that has beene explicitly purchased and paid for (such as the UBP/UDP) and changing a shipboard policy, of which there are many that can be changed at any time (such as not allowing food out of dining rooms/restaurants). The room service fee is an interesting debate and much more of a gray area - was it explicitly bargained for as part of the fare, or is it a shipboard policy? But to lump all policies and pre-cruise purchases together based on date of fare purchase - which is a moving target and varies widely among passengers on any given sailing - is far more flawed in its logic than what NLH Arizona suggested.

[tiffygirl]

You make many good points. It is a shame that other posters don't take the time to think about them before attacking. Please continue posting.

 

I am still attempting not to post but do want to respond to a couple of points. Debating an issue is one thing -- name-calling is another. It is also obvious that some posters are not even reading what is being written. Words are being twisted. When I mentioned that I have met Mr. Del Rio, posters decided that I was one of his best friends and that we are discussing NCL and these threads. Although nothing could be further from the truth, truth does not really seem to matter.

 

In any case, I would like to repeat two of NLH Arizona's questions and perhaps someone will think about them before responding.

 

1. Which products would you suggest that they raise, but keep in mind it has to benefit everyone?

 

2. I'm changing this question a bit...... if NCL had announced to everyone that these changes would take effect August 15 (or even October 15th), would you be more accepting of the changes?

 

Why do they need to raise the cost at all? are they not making a profit? or does the top ex's need bigger bonuses????? No don' t charge me for RS so Apollo, Del Rio and company can make bigger saleries.

 

If they are going to raise cost, then replace with something to enhance the customer experience. That has NOT been done....

[NLH Arizona]

Why do they need to raise the cost at all? are they not making a profit? or does the top ex's need bigger bonuses????? No don' t charge me for RS so Apollo, Del Rio and company can make bigger saleries.

 

If they are going to raise cost, then replace with something to enhance the customer experience. That has NOT been done....

First off, I hope you got some packing done yesterday; your cruise is coming up quickly and I hope you have a wonderful time.

 

A company needs to raise prices, because their vendors raise the prices to them on the products and services that they purchase from these companies (have food prices raised, have towel/sheet prices raised, has the price of detergent raised, etc.)...it is just the way the world goes around. Not to mention their responsibility to their shareholders and parent companies to make a larger profit. I don't know of any company that doesn't try to make a bigger profit, that is just how business works, and unfortunately we pay for their prices raises in one way or another (if a clothing manufacture raises their prices, the department stores raises the price of that line and then we end up paying for the manufacture's price raise). Because the bottom lines is, we pay for everything!

 

Interesting comment about trading off the charge/price raise with an enhancement. How do you think NCL could have done that with the room service fee, without changing the policy or wiping out the additional revenue that the new policy might garner them?

Edited May 22, 2015 by NLH Arizona

[LoveyHowell]

Interesting comment about trading off the charge/price raise with an enhancement. How do you think NCL could have done that with the room service fee, without changing the policy or wiping out the additional revenue that the new policy might garner them?

 

By following the RCI-Quantum Class and new Carnival models - Complimentary prepared food from early morning until midnight, upcharge for late night, and upcharge for new premium items. In some cases you could spend MORE on Carnival or RCI-Quantum class, but you can also get room service most of the day without a charge at all.

 

But instead of being mad over it, those boards see it as a net gain because they have new options for premium items that didn't exist before. They can have the no-charge item, or they can upgrade and pay. Most hours of the day still include complimentary options. And there isn't any 1100 post angry threads on those boards.

[SteveH2508]

<snip>

 

In any case, I would like to repeat two of NLH Arizona's questions and perhaps someone will think about them before responding.

 

1. Which products would you suggest that they raise, but keep in mind it has to benefit everyone?

 

2. I'm changing this question a bit...... if NCL had announced to everyone that these changes would take effect August 15 (or even October 15th), would you be more accepting of the changes?

 

A couple of thoughts (caveat - I do neither of these so I don't care - I'm not booked on NCL so I don't care:D)

 

Raise the wine corkage charge to maybe $18 (or $17.95 to follow the silly 5 cent off trend:rolleyes:). They have raised booze prices so it is only logical that corkage (which is charged to cover the loss of profit) would rise also.

 

Restrict the people who bring truckloads of soda and water on board.

 

As a 'gimme' they could allow beer to be brought on board with a corkage charge - few if any lines allow beer to be brought on board - this would appeal to us beer geeks and could be a marketing point.

Edited May 22, 2015 by SteveH2508

[NLH Arizona]

A couple of thoughts (caveat - I do neither of these so I don't care - I'm not booked on NCL so I don't care:D)

 

Raise the wine corkage charge to maybe $18 (or $17.95 to follow the silly 5 cent off trend:rolleyes:). They have raised booze prices so it is only logical that corkage (which is charged to cover the loss of profit) would rise also.

 

Restrict the people who bring truckloads of soda and water on board.

 

As a 'gimme' they could allow beer to be brought on board with a corkage charge - few if any lines allow beer to be brought on board - this would appeal to us beer geeks and could be a marketing point.

Steve, if you think NCL ticked folks off now, just try limiting or stopping what people can bring on board as far as soda and water, because then they would have to spend more money to purchase it onboard the ships. I suggested stopping it and got lambasted. Edited May 22, 2015 by NLH Arizona