So.... this seems alarming....?? (excursions)

[KyleClark]

I read this at the bottom of the excursion page. Hmmm, NCL wiping their hands of any kind of responsiblity...?

 

"NCL makes arrangements for Guests for shore excursions solely for the convenience of the Guest; NCL does not act on behalf of or supervise the parties or persons who own, furnish, or operate such excursions, and the same are provided by independent contractors. NCL assumes no responsibility for, nor guarantees the performance of, any such excursion provider, and Guests acknowledge that NCL shall not be liable for losses or injuries arising from the acts or omissions of such provider".

[Lookingforfacts]

Always been that way. Cruise lines can make 50℅ on shore excursions, with no liability. Great deal for the cruise line. Some people think the cruise line looks to see who vendor gives the guest the best possible experience. Others think it's basically put out to bid, whoever offers the excursion for the lowest price gets the contract.

[OzCanuck]

Always been that way. Cruise lines can make 50℅ on shore excursions, with no liability. Great deal for the cruise line. Some people think the cruise line looks to see who vendor gives the guest the best possible experience. Others think it's basically put out to bid, whoever offers the excursion for the lowest price gets the contract.

 

Probably a mix of both. Correct and valid local licenses/industry association memberships, adequate liability insurance and evidence thereof, etc, Plus some 'soft' qualities such as uniqueness, guest comfort, etc.

 

There is no point in offering excursions if the take up is low and the word of mouth is bad (for either the cruise ship or the vendor).

[StolidCruiser]

Not alarming in the least. It's fairly common and denotes that the cruise line is only acting as an agent to connect guests with off -ship activities they do not directly operate (and therefore cannot accept blanket liability for what might happen on them).

 

A quick search reveals a similar disclaimer on Carnival:

 

https://www.carnival.com/legal/shore-excursions-terms.aspx

[macandlucy]

Yep, I'd say that's pretty standard given it's a third party thing.

[sanger727]

It's standard. Now I'm pretty sure they also mention that they only work with licenses and insured operators so the operators should have some insurance should something go wrong. But this is similar to the boiler plate legalese in the cruise contract that says that they don't owe you anything if they are delayed, miss ports, change itineraries, or shut half the ship down for private events [emoji3].

 

That being said, glad you read all the way through it, most don't. I think people put way too much fAith in cruise ship excursions. There are a few benefits to them: if the ship is delayed or cancels ports it's on the ship to rearrange or refund excursion and they will do everything they can to wait for you (although there have been situations where they have to leave people)

 

But independent excursions are generally better and for a lower price. I don't have any illusions that the cruise line has my back on their excursions and prefer to research and find excursions for myself.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

[luddite]

Not alarming nor disturbing.

It IS old news.

[cb at sea]

If you think THAT is "disturbing", read your "cruise contract"....it's quite the "eye-opener".

[old nutter]

Just because the cruise companies go for a washy, washy disclaimer doesn't mean they can't be successfully sued. Those disclaimers are only a starting point. The law normally takes a view based on natural justice so if something did go wrong, the company would still have to prove thet did everything they could to make sure they did not have some responsibility, irrespective of the extreme wording on contracts. It comes under " a nice try" but no way legal system. Don't forget that most cruise companies are based on islands that have a legal system based on British Justice.

 

You cannot completely sign all your rights away no matter how hard you try.

[zqvol]

Just because the cruise companies go for a washy, washy disclaimer doesn't mean they can't be successfully sued. Those disclaimers are only a starting point. The law normally takes a view based on natural justice so if something did go wrong, the company would still have to prove thet did everything they could to make sure they did not have some responsibility, irrespective of the extreme wording on contracts. It comes under " a nice try" but no way legal system. Don't forget that most cruise companies are based on islands that have a legal system based on British Justice.

 

You cannot completely sign all your rights away no matter how hard you try.

 

Remind me not to send anyone to the law school you attended, because that is the craziest discussion of contract and tort law that I have ever heard.

[tiger-91]

And when you start your tour you usually have to sign a waiver with the actual guide before starting your excursion if it involves any danger. Nothing new there either.