When did Margaritaville become a specialty on Escape?

[jackson bernard]

Escape is registered in the Bahamas, so US law has no authority...

 

 

HAL ships aren't registered in the USA either but someone was just awarded more than 20 million in a U.S. Court for getting hurt in one of their ships.

 

Maybe the team is lawyers working for HAL were unaware of that rule.....

[SuiteTraveler]

I would think you would find it very disappointing since you don't like to eat that type of food on your cruise. For others, it's good food (depending on what you order, I loved their fish tacos) and you're outside, looking at the ocean, table service and a decent margarita to cap it off.

 

Wouldn't your friend, the young widow and her kids also find this Margaritaville on the ship disappointing since they don't do the fun stuff land based Margaritaville's do?

[motleyfan]

I'm still in conversation. The supervisor had to call executive office. She had me on hold 90 minutes and then I had to go- but I'm not done. Read your contract and the T&C. It's not there. The only thing they may have to stand on is the legal notice on their website but that doesn't cover their brochures.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I also emailed on Sunday and have not heard back yet. I am going to call today. We leave in three weeks and are not happy with this latest change.

 

Really? So the whining is hitting a fever pitch? To be honest I hope you each get $100, maybe it'll make this gastly argument come to a screeching halt. If they give everybody who's complaining $100 might make a small dent in their profits but over the long run it'll make it easier.

[Loonbeam]

Actually I do, but only if the terms of the contract violate US law. These don't. If you want, I can get into a dissertation of substantive versus non substantive changes in a contractual relationship between parties and how that is affected by adjacent communications such as marketing materials.

 

Or you can accept that on a legal basis, NCL can make this change without recourse for previously booked passengers.

 

 

you know U.S. law supersedes any companies contract, right?

 

Maybe that's not true in Canada. Who knows, who cares?

[Loonbeam]

And they are correct, 'legally' in most cases (again, substantive change rules apply when it comes to room types.)

 

As noted, their contract and T+C are similar to pretty much every line out there (Princess actually is a little worse consumer wise, as are most of the Carnival lines).

 

I read my T&C. They are stating the legal notice on the website gives them the right to make any change to the product they want to. Including changing the names of cabin types and moving you into a different room than you booked - I said "so you could reclassify an interior as a mini suite and move me if you wanted to?" And the answer was "yes". That conversation alone is enough to have me rethinking whether I'll book NCL in advance ever again. As a last minute thing when I know exactly what I'm getting? Maybe. I'm telling you that their philosophy has changed. Do with it what you will. False advertising is false advertising in my view.

 

And- Margaritaville as complimentary was not a misprint. It was advertised as such for a year.

[dna529]

Really? So the whining is hitting a fever pitch? To be honest I hope you each get $100, maybe it'll make this gastly argument come to a screeching halt. If they give everybody who's complaining $100 might make a small dent in their profits but over the long run it'll make it easier.

 

They aren't going to give anything. People on Facebook have reported that they have received reply emails -"sorry to learn of your discontent and any inconvenience this may have caused". Nobody is going to get compensated. NCL doesn't care.

[CasinoCruzGirl]

The reason I, as well as other women, I'd think, don't put their photos on the Social Media page or here on CC is because there are a lot of men who would comment.....some nice and some not so nice comments, other men are simply pigs and say some naughty things.

 

Besides, that's the fun of Meet and Greets. We finally get to see whom we're cruising with that we've been talking to.

 

Harriet

 

Oh man I have my picture on here lol

[jackson bernard]

Actually I do, but only if the terms of the contract violate US law. These don't. If you want, I can get into a dissertation of substantive versus non substantive changes in a contractual relationship between parties and how that is affected by adjacent communications such as marketing materials.

 

Or you can accept that on a legal basis, NCL can make this change without recourse for previously booked passengers.

 

 

Please go into your dissertation. Also please explain why HAL was sued successfully in a U.S. Court. What law did they violate when an automatic door hit some guy in the face?

 

Maybe you should file an appeal on behalf of HAL with your vast legal knowledge.

[MisterFidgetpants]

They aren't going to give anything. People on Facebook have reported that they have received reply emails -"sorry to learn of your discontent and any inconvenience this may have caused". Nobody is going to get compensated. NCL doesn't care.

 

Herr is my experience. I sent an email expressing my disappointment. I quickly received a response from guest relations saying they wanted to speak to me. So I called the guest relations agent and they said the same as above right off a script. I asked what was the point of asking to discuss this with me and they said they wanted to acknowledge my email. Well...that was effectively done when they had emailed me so the phone call was a waste of time.

 

8 had referenced a thread here where someone claims to have received comped meals for 7 people and the rep said others have told him the same thing but no one has seen it bc they don't read CC. I was also told NO ONE was given any credit or compensation and that the claim was false.

 

I did formally request $15 credit per person so we can have a meal there as advertised and was told it would be sent to management but so far they have denied all requests.

 

The guest relations agent was nice but just reading a script and so ultimately was useless and a waste of time.

 

We have 4 rooms booked with 14 people.

 

One and done.

[travelinmoma]

I read my T&C. They are stating the legal notice on the website gives them the right to make any change to the product they want to. Including changing the names of cabin types and moving you into a different room than you booked - I said "so you could reclassify an interior as a mini suite and move me if you wanted to?" And the answer was "yes". That conversation alone is enough to have me rethinking whether I'll book NCL in advance ever again. As a last minute thing when I know exactly what I'm getting? Maybe. I'm telling you that their philosophy has changed. Do with it what you will. False advertising is false advertising in my view.

 

And- Margaritaville as complimentary was not a misprint. It was advertised as such for a year.

 

When I called the woman actually said, "We can change anything we want anytime we want. We change things all the time. "

[LadySpoilt]

Herr is my experience. I sent an email expressing my disappointment. I quickly received a response from guest relations saying they wanted to speak to me. So I called the guest relations agent and they said the same as above right off a script. I asked what was the point of asking to discuss this with me and they said they wanted to acknowledge my email. Well...that was effectively done when they had emailed me so the phone call was a waste of time.

 

8 had referenced a thread here where someone claims to have received comped meals for 7 people and the rep said others have told him the same thing but no one has seen it bc they don't read CC. I was also told NO ONE was given any credit or compensation and that the claim was false.

 

I did formally request $15 credit per person so we can have a meal there as advertised and was told it would be sent to management but so far they have denied all requests.

 

 

The guest relations agent was nice but just reading a script and so ultimately was useless and a waste of time.

 

We have 4 rooms booked with 14 people.

 

One and done.

 

 

I am the poster that wrote about the 7 comped meals. You were quite simply lied to by NCL (something they seem to be doing a lot of lately). I am posting the reply I got from NCL. Besides my meals it has been reported that several people had gotten OBC's.

 

From: "Mark Kansley" <MKansley@ncl.com>

To: "

Sent: Saturday, November 28, 2015 8:03:47 PM

Subject: Fwd: Escape Reservation number

 

 

 

Good Evening Ms , my name is Mark Kansley and I am the SVP of Hotel Operations for NORWEGIAN Cruise Lines. Mr Del Rio shared your email with me and requested that I work with you to make up for any operational changes that you feel may have devalued your cruise on the Escape.

 

 

To ensure that your experienced is not devalued and that your group is able to experience Margaritaville at Sea, please be aware that I have instructed the Escape Team to coordinate with you once you embark on December 12th, to reserve a dining time at Margaritaville that works for your group, with Mr Del Rio's compliments.

 

 

The Norwegian Escape is a fantastic vessel and I know that you and your family group will have a wonderful vacation onboard, and enjoy all the wonderful amenities and offerings that the ship has to offer, including Margaritaville.

 

 

Thank you for choosing NORWEGIAN Cruise Lines and we look forward to welcoming you onboard in December as well as in 2016.

 

 

Bon Voyage

 

Mark Kansley

SVP Hotel Operations

Norwegian Cruise Line

Edited December 2, 2015 by LadySpoilt

[Loonbeam]

At what point did I say US law was irrelevant. I said it didn't invalidate or supersede a legal contract (or to put it another way a civil or criminal violation does not necessarily void a contract with a severability clause, which this has).. HAL was sued for negligence not breach of contract, which is the matter at hand here. And if the contract is legal, the assertion of US law trumps contract terms is irrelevant. As long as both parties agree to a contract AND that contract does not violate US Law, its valid.

 

And since you asked.

 

Let's say you order a car. A 2016 blue Toyota Camry. Toyota cannot (without your consent) decide to give you a Corolla for the same price. This is what is known as a substantive change, where the delivered product is substantially different in terms of performance or appearance. But the demo model you drove had Firestone tires, traction A, wear B and the car you were delivered had Goodyear, traction A, wear B. This is considered a non-substantive change unless the contract specified Firestone as performance/appearance is not affected.

 

Translating that to NCL, the contract specifies in section 3A "The fare paid by the Guest for this ticket includes transportation on the

vessel named herein, full board, and ordinary vessel food, but does not include beer, wine, spirits, sodas

or mineral waters, nor expenses incurred for other incidental or personal services/purchases." Your invoice, which is relatable to the contract by the use of the term fare, indicates a specific cabin class or cabin (there are some other clauses that affect this as well). It may indicate promotions. It does not indicate venues in which to eat. Note that the itinerary on the invoice is not probative as the contract contains specific language reserving the right to change this at any time, also the ship.

 

So, cabin or cabin location can be considered a substantive change, as it is specified in a relatable document to the contract.

 

This brings us to the term 'ordinary vessel food'. It's written that way for a reason, but the long as short of it is for legal purposes, the buffet qualifies. Basically it guarantees you 3 meals a day somewhere on the ship, in line with what one would expect for those 3 meals. The MDR as a guaranteed legal benefit is a bit trickier because you could make the argument that the space was needed to afford food in a timely manner (they could shift all the MDRs to buffets without violating the contract, for example). Basically, as long as they offer a similar product (lunch) at another venue capable of supplying all the pax on boat in a timely manner, that's covered.

 

Now, ancillary marketing materials versus the contract. The key here is section 4(a) "The Guest agrees to abide by the rules of the Carrier, including, but not limited

to, the rules and regulations particularly set forth below, and to follow the lawful instructions of the

vessel's officers and crew, at all times."

 

For the purpose of this, rules include whether a restaurant is a la carte. Please note that there are no limitations in the contract as to changes the line can make to those rules, nor any legal constriction as regards rules in place at time of booking. In short, NCL at any time can basically say, 'this is a rule' and as long as whatever it is is not illegal or violates part of the contract, you have to live with it.

 

Here's the important point. The contract (and that clause) supersede all marketing documents in play at the time of signing (booking). So, in effect, ANYTHING non-substantive they promise you at time of booking is subject to change under the terms of the contract even if its splashed across the web page and every brochure.

 

Now, interestingly enough, people who booked AFTER the change was announced MIGHT have a valid complaint, because things like the dining list still showed complimentary AFTER the rules changed and were announced. Since an actual change had been made and publicized, theoretically false advertising could be claimed, HOWEVER, that's addressed in the contract as well.. Section 3(b) "Carrier shall not be obligated to honor

any booking resulting from, nor shall be responsible or liable whatsoever in connection with, misprints or

errors of any kind, whether in brochures, advertisements, on the Internet, during the booking process or

otherwise"

 

Basically they can say 'oops, mistake, sorry we missed that one' and be covered.

 

And with all that, lets just say you think you have a valid claim for damages in the amount of your M'Ville expenses. Can't sue except in small claims court (section 10). And such court must be in Miami, where you may not live.

 

There are 3 exceptions to the restrictions above. One is negligence (the HAL matter). Second is finding a term of the contract legally unenforceable (depending on circumstances could be used to void the class action limitation for example), Third is a technical error that voids the contract.

 

In business, assume that any contract you sign with a company, either implicitly or explicitly is there for their protection, not yours.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Please go into your dissertation. Also please explain why HAL was sued successfully in a U.S. Court. What law did they violate when an automatic door hit some guy in the face?

 

Maybe you should file an appeal on behalf of HAL with your vast legal knowledge.

[dna529]

When I called the woman actually said, "We can change anything we want anytime we want. We change things all the time. "

 

Wow. Bottom line is that pleasing the customer after payment has been made is not a priority. Sure wish I didn't have a future cruise certificate to use.

[TheDougOut]

Herr is my experience. I sent an email expressing my disappointment. I quickly received a response from guest relations saying they wanted to speak to me. So I called the guest relations agent and they said the same as above right off a script.

 

...

 

The guest relations agent was nice but just reading a script and so ultimately was useless and a waste of time.

 

I assume you sent an email expressing your disappointment because you wanted to express your disappointment? You received an email response, and an opportunity to speak one-on-one with a representative. I can assume you were given ample opportunity to express your disappointment. So why was it a waste of time? Because they didn't offer to pay for your disappointment?

[MisterFidgetpants]

I assume you sent an email expressing your disappointment because you wanted to express your disappointment? You received an email response, and an opportunity to speak one-on-one with a representative. I can assume you were given ample opportunity to express your disappointment. So why was it a waste of time? Because they didn't offer to pay for your disappointment?

 

I was disappointed because I spoke to a Resolution Specialist from the Executive Office and they were reading from a script and powerless to do anything one way or another. One would think that if someone titled "Resolution Specialist" from the Executive Office emails to say they want to have a discussion that they might be empowered to resolve issues, not just read off a card. Overall I am disappointed with the response because it displays a complete lack of understanding of the issue or having any ability whatsoever to resolve it. Why ask to speak to me via email if they have nothing to say? It's a waste of my time and theirs and just creates the illusion that they care about the matter.

 

I haven't made a lot of noise on here like others because I can already see they have no corporate presence here, so that is a waste of time. I obtained an email address from this site that I felt appropriate, contacted the company, and posted my personal experience for the benefit of others. I am quite glad that the person who received consideration from the SVP was kind enough to share their letter as I have forwarded it back to the Resolution Specialist I spoke with.

 

When the cruise was booked we had the option to eat at Margaritaville daily and as much as we desired, not that we necessarily would do so, but that we could. Given the changes, I do not think asking for $15 credit per person to dine there is an unreasonable request. That would allow us to have one, modest, meal per person.

 

Our combined bookings total WELL into five figures on price, so yes, I am allowed to be disappointed in changes. I am allowed to address those to the company. And I am allowed to share my experiences with others.

 

I hope that answers your question.

[Loonbeam]

I think your response was the right one (regardless of outcome).

 

If nothing else, assuming NCL uses an industry standard CRM and does some basic tagging, your issue will appear in metrics that I hope management sees.

 

I was disappointed because I spoke to a Resolution Specialist from the Executive Office and they were reading from a script and powerless to do anything one way or another. One would think that if someone titled "Resolution Specialist" from the Executive Office emails to say they want to have a discussion that they might be empowered to resolve issues, not just read off a card. Overall I am disappointed with the response because it displays a complete lack of understanding of the issue or having any ability whatsoever to resolve it. Why ask to speak to me via email if they have nothing to say? It's a waste of my time and theirs and just creates the illusion that they care about the matter.

 

I haven't made a lot of noise on here like others because I can already see they have no corporate presence here, so that is a waste of time. I obtained an email address from this site that I felt appropriate, contacted the company, and posted my personal experience for the benefit of others. I am quite glad that the person who received consideration from the SVP was kind enough to share their letter as I have forwarded it back to the Resolution Specialist I spoke with.

 

When the cruise was booked we had the option to eat at Margaritaville daily and as much as we desired, not that we necessarily would do so, but that we could. Given the changes, I do not think asking for $15 credit per person to dine there is an unreasonable request. That would allow us to have one, modest, meal per person.

 

Our combined bookings total WELL into five figures on price, so yes, I am allowed to be disappointed in changes. I am allowed to address those to the company. And I am allowed to share my experiences with others.

 

I hope that answers your question.

[rg24601]

Legal or not it still means a ship with 4000 people has limited lunch choices and no pool side eats.

 

100 obc would be about right.

 

But I have faith in NCL.

[3HourCruise]

Just spent far too long on phone with 5 different NCL agents trying to address the ethics of this switch. As a large party traveling in December, it feels like a bait and switch. And an expensive one if we choose to eat there multiple times - even for lunch - during our cruise (which we were intending to do when it was a comp restaurant.)

 

We booked NCL Escape (and paid in full) with the understanding Margaritaville was a complimentary restaurant. We had other cruise options for the same time with RC (who we've happily cruised before), but decided to give NCL a try - despite it being more expensive for the same cruise window). Margaritaville being comp was definitely one of the reasons we chose NCL over the other options. (Clearly not the only reason, but definitely a factor.)

 

After speaking with multiple agents at NCL...some more sympathetic than others (and one completely unapologetic saying "we have the right to make changes") - the final answer is..."Sorry, corporate decision, can't do anything about it - no compensation offered". Like it or like it. I don't know ethically, how NCL can heavily advertise a restaurant as complimentary and then freely change it to a ala carte ($3.99-8.99) less than 3 weeks before we cruise and feel passengers who paid for this inclusion are not deserving of any compensation? I'm getting less than I paid for...why is that ok? Even a token OBC to let guests know we acknowledge we're giving you less, but we'd like you to still try it on us.

 

Very very poor customer service that clearly reflects the attitudes at the top which are cascading down. I sincerely hope this isn't reflective of our entire customer service experience on this cruise.

 

Holding my breath.

 

* Was able to confirm that our UBP can be used at Margaritaville.

[TheDougOut]

Given the changes, I do not think asking for $15 credit per person to dine there is an unreasonable request.

...

I hope that answers your question.

Yes, that clarifies it.

 

To those asking for a credit... do you think your circumstances are special, and that you should be entitled to a credit while others are not? Or are you suggesting that everyone should be provided a similar credit? If it's the latter, then how is this a policy change?

 

I'm all for expressing an opinion, both here and directly with the company. I just can't comprehend how some people think they're owed compensation over this. And truthfully, I believe our communications with NCL are less effective when we follow them up with requests for person gain. Instead of allowing NCL to hear our collective voices, we're forcing them into a defensive stance.

[TheDougOut]

* Was able to confirm that our UBP can be used at Margaritaville.

 

Good information - thanks for sharing.

 

Does anyone know if the bar area is walk-up, similar to the -Away ships? I'm hopeful we can get drink service there, even if we're not dining there.

[jackson bernard]

At what point did I say US law was irrelevant. I said it didn't invalidate or supersede a legal contract (or to put it another way a civil or criminal violation does not necessarily void a contract with a severability clause, which this has).. HAL was sued for negligence not breach of contract, which is the matter at hand here. And if the contract is legal, the assertion of US law trumps contract terms is irrelevant. As long as both parties agree to a contract AND that contract does not violate US Law, its valid.

 

And since you asked.

 

Let's say you order a car. A 2016 blue Toyota Camry. Toyota cannot (without your consent) decide to give you a Corolla for the same price. This is what is known as a substantive change, where the delivered product is substantially different in terms of performance or appearance. But the demo model you drove had Firestone tires, traction A, wear B and the car you were delivered had Goodyear, traction A, wear B. This is considered a non-substantive change unless the contract specified Firestone as performance/appearance is not affected.

 

Translating that to NCL, the contract specifies in section 3A "The fare paid by the Guest for this ticket includes transportation on the

vessel named herein, full board, and ordinary vessel food, but does not include beer, wine, spirits, sodas

or mineral waters, nor expenses incurred for other incidental or personal services/purchases." Your invoice, which is relatable to the contract by the use of the term fare, indicates a specific cabin class or cabin (there are some other clauses that affect this as well). It may indicate promotions. It does not indicate venues in which to eat. Note that the itinerary on the invoice is not probative as the contract contains specific language reserving the right to change this at any time, also the ship.

 

So, cabin or cabin location can be considered a substantive change, as it is specified in a relatable document to the contract.

 

This brings us to the term 'ordinary vessel food'. It's written that way for a reason, but the long as short of it is for legal purposes, the buffet qualifies. Basically it guarantees you 3 meals a day somewhere on the ship, in line with what one would expect for those 3 meals. The MDR as a guaranteed legal benefit is a bit trickier because you could make the argument that the space was needed to afford food in a timely manner (they could shift all the MDRs to buffets without violating the contract, for example). Basically, as long as they offer a similar product (lunch) at another venue capable of supplying all the pax on boat in a timely manner, that's covered.

 

Now, ancillary marketing materials versus the contract. The key here is section 4(a) "The Guest agrees to abide by the rules of the Carrier, including, but not limited

to, the rules and regulations particularly set forth below, and to follow the lawful instructions of the

vessel's officers and crew, at all times."

 

For the purpose of this, rules include whether a restaurant is a la carte. Please note that there are no limitations in the contract as to changes the line can make to those rules, nor any legal constriction as regards rules in place at time of booking. In short, NCL at any time can basically say, 'this is a rule' and as long as whatever it is is not illegal or violates part of the contract, you have to live with it.

 

Here's the important point. The contract (and that clause) supersede all marketing documents in play at the time of signing (booking). So, in effect, ANYTHING non-substantive they promise you at time of booking is subject to change under the terms of the contract even if its splashed across the web page and every brochure.

 

Now, interestingly enough, people who booked AFTER the change was announced MIGHT have a valid complaint, because things like the dining list still showed complimentary AFTER the rules changed and were announced. Since an actual change had been made and publicized, theoretically false advertising could be claimed, HOWEVER, that's addressed in the contract as well.. Section 3(b) "Carrier shall not be obligated to honor

any booking resulting from, nor shall be responsible or liable whatsoever in connection with, misprints or

errors of any kind, whether in brochures, advertisements, on the Internet, during the booking process or

otherwise"

 

Basically they can say 'oops, mistake, sorry we missed that one' and be covered.

 

And with all that, lets just say you think you have a valid claim for damages in the amount of your M'Ville expenses. Can't sue except in small claims court (section 10). And such court must be in Miami, where you may not live.

 

There are 3 exceptions to the restrictions above. One is negligence (the HAL matter). Second is finding a term of the contract legally unenforceable (depending on circumstances could be used to void the class action limitation for example), Third is a technical error that voids the contract.

 

In business, assume that any contract you sign with a company, either implicitly or explicitly is there for their protection, not yours.

 

 

Thank you for such a well written comprehensive post.

[blueboro]

[TheDougOut]

 

It appears that won't help matters. Crystal's Serenity ship does not even offer a Margaritaville at sea.

[MisterFidgetpants]

Yes, that clarifies it.

 

To those asking for a credit... do you think your circumstances are special, and that you should be entitled to a credit while others are not? Or are you suggesting that everyone should be provided a similar credit? If it's the latter, then how is this a policy change?

 

I'm all for expressing an opinion, both here and directly with the company. I just can't comprehend how some people think they're owed compensation over this. And truthfully, I believe our communications with NCL are less effective when we follow them up with requests for person gain. Instead of allowing NCL to hear our collective voices, we're forcing them into a defensive stance.

 

Glad I was able to satisfy your earlier questions.

 

Do I think my circumstance is special? No. NCL has made a unilateral change against ALL guests.

 

Do I believe I am entitled to a credit and others are not? No. I feel all guests booked prior to the announcement of the change should be given credit to use at the restaurant.

 

How it is a policy change is that prior to the switch I could dine at the restaurant as many days as I wish with no further charges. Now I can no longer do that. A modest credit, to me, would show that NCL does value its guests and I would accept being able to go one time to try it out without any further financial penalty or detriment on my behalf. $15 per person is very low. I don't even think that covers a burger, fries, and a slice of key lime pie per person once you factor in the newly added service fees. So I certainly did not request that I be provided 7 days of all you can eat at the venue. Also, NCL would have no reason or precedent to compensate anyone else who booked after the change was made; those people made a booking with understandings and expectations of certain inclusions and exclusions associated with their fare. That is to say, someone can be on my cruise but be booked after the announcement to change to a la carte and really have no valid reason at that point to request compensation.

 

I believe expressing an opinion here is akin to being in an echo chamber, or a padded cell. The company does not read or respond to this website at a corporate level. I have every right to contact directly and state my disappointment and request a resolution. A request for resolution is in no way a personal gain.

 

Please explain to me, *IF*, big if, NCL were to arrange for a complimentary meal for our party or provided a token credit to cover one small meal, that is a personal gain compared to when I booked and the offering was no charge daily for as much food as I'd like to order. Recovering less than 1/7th of what I was advertised as being able to use is some conciliation on their behalf, but hardly is a personal gain on mine by any stretch of the definition.

 

I believe it did not matter if I asked for something or not. The purpose of the Resolutions Specialist was only to inform me that my message had been read. He had no ability or intent to resolve the situation. Their corporate stance is exactly the same whether you are just letting your voice be known, or asking for compensation.

 

I never want more than I am fairly entitled to, and in this situation I do not expect NCL to make any drastic change to provide to me what they advertised. I would however appreciate some consideration from them in the name of good customer service.

 

I fully understand some people simply not caring or being impacted by this. But if advertising a fare inclusion and removing it without notice or compensation is fair to the guest, what will the next one be? Will you board a ship and find with no notice there are fees to use the pool, or a minimum fee to be in any lounge with live entertainment? Further, would you stand for that sort of treatment?

 

The ball is NCL's court. They are not impressing me much today, but I will give the Resolutions agent time to follow up and respond, as he stated he would. Please also note, at no time did I demand, threaten, get loud, or argue. The agent was very nice, just ineffective and, apparently, not fully aware of communication others at the company had been relaying to guests.

[rg24601]

It appears that won't help matters. Crystal's Serenity ship does not even offer a Margaritaville at sea.

 

But if they did would it be a fee based, a la carte pricing with land based pricing for everywhere that isn't Vegas, California or New York City?