One less day on with change on Jewel - Not Fair!

[gusbourg]

How do you know that they don't have a warranty contract? Even with a warranty, the azipod would still have to be fixed, which would mean at least one day of maintenance.

 

We don't, but that's not what he said. He didn't say that the azipod system doesn't need to get fixed either. The point is, NCL removed a day of cruising from their customers due to the azipod situation. Instead of asking their customers to pay for a day of cruising that they're not receiving, they should go for liquidated damages against the manufacturer, if it was indeed a manufacturing defect.

 

That said we don't know it was a manufacturing defect. One of my wife's clients apparently just returned from the exact same cruise, and apparently said that they hit something in port in Alaska. If true, then the current cruise is running on a system that needs to be repaired and the next is as well. It may not be the manufacturers fault in this instance, hence nobody to hold responsible.

 

Regardless of whether it's the manufacturers fault (faulty equipment), or if its NCLs fault (they hit something in port), the party who is NOT responsible is the customer. So don't ask us to make up for your lost revenue. That they did is not right morally, or as posted twice now, contractually.

 

I'm glad NCL has committed to paying us what they owe us under the terms of the contract (section 6 paragraph (f)) but that we had to go to such lengths to get it is inexcusable.

Edited August 5, 2016 by gusbourg

[gusbourg]

Seems like a situation where NCL is damned if they do and damned if they don't. No win.

 

NCL would not be damned at all if they had just done the right thing (morally and contractually) in the first place. Now they are damned, because they've pissed off their customers, are still having to pay out what they owe, and are receiving negative media attention. It is an entirely self-inflicted wound.

[navybankerteacher]

Do the regulations state the required length of the "whistle stop"?

 

No - often it is just a couple of hours; say, in Vancouver for a Seattle to Alaska cruise, or in Ensenada for a California to Hawaii itinerary: barely long enough for a walk down the pier.

[swedish weave]

What I don't understand re the original post is this. If NCL says the ship needs some type of repair etc. why didn't they cancel the cruise and refund all of your money.I wouldn't want to be on a ship that has some issues that would cause them to cut the cruise short so they can be back in the Seattle port early.

 

Ships can safely sail with one Azipod bad, but just can't maintain the speed they need for a full ininerary.

[www3traveler]

gusbourg,

 

Are they treating Seattle as a port of call or for those who live in the area, will you be allowed be allowed to disembark upon arrival?

 

What time is being given for your arrival?

[swedish weave]

How do you know that they don't have a warranty contract? Even with a warranty, the azipod would still have to be fixed, which would mean at least one day of maintenance.

 

If NCL has a warranty for the Azipods, that eliminates any logical reason for them to try to "cheap out" the passengers All costs could be claimed against the manufacturer.

 

Perhaps NCL was trying to use this incident to "double dip" by shorting the passengers. That is -- until the media became involved...

 

NCL gained their share of adverse publicity from the beverage restrictions, and certainly took notice of the effects of another possible blast from the media for this.

Edited August 5, 2016 by swedish weave

[BDsquared]

So sorry this happened, shame on NCL. Glad you got something worked out. Enjoy your cruise!

[Regguy]

Seems like a situation where NCL is damned if they do and damned if they don't. No win.

 

Can't win? Their vessel wasn't fit and then they tried to make it their customers' problem. Once the issue hit the light of day, they knew their position was not defensible.

 

The win would be to take defensible positions in the first place.

[triptolemus]

Ships can safely sail with one Azipod bad, but just can't maintain the speed they need for a full ininerary.

 

Two is one, and one is none.

[swedish weave]

Two is one, and one is none.

 

That is why we have Coast Guard and tugboats. lol

[gusbourg]

That is why we have Coast Guard and tugboats. lol

 

God I hope not. :)

[AdoraBelle]

Can't win? Their vessel wasn't fit and then they tried to make it their customers' problem. Once the issue hit the light of day, they knew their position was not defensible.

 

The win would be to take defensible positions in the first place.

 

This.

 

For the cheerleaders: the corporation doesn't love you back.

[HokiePoq]

If the ship requires some work which means it needs to be in Seattle for an extra day, what would you suggest NCL do differently?

 

Other than offer more compensation obviously, as we all seem to be quite unanimous on that one.

 

Have been on HAL when corporate flew in a repair team to work on the ship wherever it was in port. I think it was the azipod.

I will give NCL the benefit of the doubt on the repair necessity and which port had to be missed to do it. On the other hand, the comp is totally inadequate. I would be very disappointed myself. If not from Seattle I'd be on Trip Advisor to see if I could arrange any city tour or sightseeing through a local company. Anyone who had excursion credit should get that $50 as OBC plus everyone should have their port fees refunded to credit card immediately. (I imagine they'd do that, wouldn't they? HAL immediately refunded them our cruise last summer when we missed a port due to weather.) Del Rio has impressed me only in the negative.....tearing down what O'Sheehan built up.

[NHL Philly Fan]

So sorry this happened, shame on NCL. Glad you got something worked out. Enjoy your cruise!

 

Oh yeah shame on a company for giving $100 in OBC to each cabin when the passengers agreed to a contract that says that they are due no compensation if there is an itinerary change, including returning to the embakation port.

[gusbourg]

Oh yeah shame on a company for giving $100 in OBC to each cabin when the passengers agreed to a contract that says that they are due no compensation if there is an itinerary change, including returning to the embakation port.

 

You choose to refer to one paragraph in section 6 and ignore the entire rest of the section. Specifically the part where they spell out exactly what is due to customers when they need to cut the cruise short for mechanical repairs. You seem to only want to read the contract from one perspective. You only look at what NCL has the right to do, but you ignore the part that describes their obligation.

 

Let's be clear, they're cutting the trip short due to the need to repair a mechanical condition. In that scenario, they owe their customers the days that were cut short. If they're unable to provide lodging on the boat when it returns (which they are able to so it's moot) they also owe lodging, and in some cases even airfare.

 

It's their contract. We didn't draft it. All I ever asked them to do was meet the terms of the contract that they themselves wrote. As someone who is all about stepping up and meeting your commitments, how is it so hard for you to understand that the contract includes commitments that both sides need to keep?

[KeithJenner]

Oh yeah shame on a company for giving $100 in OBC to each cabin when the passengers agreed to a contract that says that they are due no compensation if there is an itinerary change, including returning to the embakation port.

 

Whilst you may be technically correct about what NCL were legally required to do, the fact is that this change makes a significant difference to the cruise for a lot of passengers, so a company should really go further than what they need to do. It would appear that even NCL agree with that, by offering the $100 in the first place.

 

How much over is appropriate is a matter of opinion. NCL went for $100, the nearest thing that we got to a consensus on here was 1/7 of the cruise fare. It is actually difficult to say who was correct, but the fact that NCL capitulated so quickly would suggest that their initial offer was too low.

 

The problem is that the value depends per person. For the person on here who lives in Seattle, $100 was nowhere near enough to make up for the change. When I did this cruise, one seventh of my cruise fare back would have been a ridiculously large amount to compensate for the affect on my cruise. As always, different circumstances for different people.

 

It really is a push though to say that $100 was an offer that should be applauded.

Edited August 5, 2016 by KeithJenner

[SteveH2508]

This whole thread has been from a US legal perspective. Any Europeans on this cruise would have some serious legal guns to aim at NCL in the form of the EU Travel Directives. NCL would be liable for a deal more than $100 - certainly 1/7th of the fare - possibly more than 1/7th of the fare.

[gusbourg]

gusbourg,

 

Are they treating Seattle as a port of call or for those who live in the area, will you be allowed be allowed to disembark upon arrival?

 

What time is being given for your arrival?

 

The itinerary shows that we arrive at 8am on Friday. That said I'm guessing they might get in earlier - because it also shows they leave Victoria at 9:30 PM Thursday night.

 

So a shift supervisor from NCL just called me out of the blue to see if I had any questions... I asked her that very question. The answer was we can request to get off of the boat but that's a deviation. If I understood her correctly it does not seem like they're treating Friday like a normal port call where they'll be staffed up to move a large number of people on and off the boat that day. I hope it was just a miscommunication between the both of us, however.

[NLH Arizona]

The itinerary shows that we arrive at 8am on Friday. That said I'm guessing they might get in earlier - because it also shows they leave Victoria at 9:30 PM Thursday night.

 

So a shift supervisor from NCL just called me out of the blue to see if I had any questions... I asked her that very question. The answer was we can request to get off of the boat but that's a deviation. If I understood her correctly it does not seem like they're treating Friday like a normal port call where they'll be staffed up to move a large number of people on and off the boat that day. I hope it was just a miscommunication between the both of us, however.

I would get in contact with someone the first day you are on the ship and not wait until near the end, just in case they have to confirm what you were told and let them know you plan to disembark when they get to Seattle. Always better to be safe than sorry, IMHO.

[OV8]

They are doing this because there is a problem with expulsion system and they need to repair it in Seattle. I have been on the phone with them multiple times today. They are being difficult even giving me a hard time about wanting to change my perk from the excursion discount (less ports) to UBP because we are so close to sail. I'm only making the change because of a change they made so close to sail. Beyond frustrated at the moment. $100 on board credit and bad customer service is all they are offering.

 

 

WTH is the expulsion system?

[casofilia]

WTH is the expulsion system?

 

?? Propulsion ??

[NHL Philly Fan]

i don't understand what you're saying here. I've asked ncl to prorate the missing day, and i'll disembark the day we get into seattle. They will not under any circumstances do this. It's the only fair thing to do in my mind, and they refuse to do it.]

 

with respect to ruining the vacation? Well too late. If you planned excursions in skagway, they're not happening now. I could get over this (stuff happens) but the insult to injury here is that ncl is charging us for 7 days and giving us 6. Given that it's a cruise to alaska, and i'll only have two days in alaska ports, you could argue that they should be giving me a 1/3 discount - but all i asked for was a single prorated day.

 

 

 

Great question. Especially for the people who live in seattle, they've all seen victoria. For the people flying in to seattle, they're all going to see it anyways. The thought process by ncl here is seriously lacking any sort of through or process.

 

 

there is no missing day.

[triptolemus]

WTH is the expulsion system?

 

You pointed out an error! Congratulations! You win the internet today!

[NHL Philly Fan]

We don't, but that's not what he said. He didn't say that the azipod system doesn't need to get fixed either. The point is, NCL removed a day of cruising from their customers due to the azipod situation. Instead of asking their customers to pay for a day of cruising that they're not receiving, they should go for liquidated damages against the manufacturer, if it was indeed a manufacturing defect.

 

That said we don't know it was a manufacturing defect. One of my wife's clients apparently just returned from the exact same cruise, and apparently said that they hit something in port in Alaska. If true, then the current cruise is running on a system that needs to be repaired and the next is as well. It may not be the manufacturers fault in this instance, hence nobody to hold responsible.

 

Regardless of whether it's the manufacturers fault (faulty equipment), or if its NCLs fault (they hit something in port), the party who is NOT responsible is the customer. So don't ask us to make up for your lost revenue. That they did is not right morally, or as posted twice now, contractually.

 

I'm glad NCL has committed to paying us what they owe us under the terms of the contract (section 6 paragraph (f)) but that we had to go to such lengths to get it is inexcusable.

 

 

They are getting all seven days on the ship as advertised. What part of the contract that we all agree to are you having difficulty understanding?

 

The Guest agrees that the Carrier has the sole discretion and liberty to direct the movements of the vessel, including the rights to: proceed without pilots and tow, and assist other vessels in all situations; deviate from the purchased voyage or the normal course for any purpose, including, without limitation, in the interest of Guests or of the vessel, or to save life or property; put in at any unscheduled or unadvertised port; cancel any scheduled call at any port for any reason and at any time

before, during or after sailing of the vessel; omit, advance or delay landing at any scheduled or advertised port; return to port of embarkation or to any port previously visited if the Carrier deems it prudent to do so;

substitute another vessel or port(s) of call without prior notice and without incurring any liability to the Guest on account thereof for any loss, damage or delay whatsoever, whether consequential or otherwise.

 

That perfectly addresses this issue 100%.

 

 

Your reference to paragraph 6F is 100% irrelevant, this has nothing to do with guest solicitation.

Edited August 5, 2016 by NHL Philly Fan

[triptolemus]

there is no missing day.

 

You're not going to win this one, and frankly, you're acting a fool trying. Even NCL agrees that pax were entitled to $fare/7.

 

Let it go dude. You lose. Just like the Flyers.

Edited August 5, 2016 by triptolemus