Cruise cut short Gem Oct 31, 2017

[electro]

Do you know what first world problems, means?

This wasn't asked of me but I'll answer anyway.

"First world Problems" is a dismissive term used to trivialize someones complain or problem.

[j2thesea]

This wasn't asked of me but I'll answer anyway.

"First world Problems" is a dismissive term used to trivialize someones complain or problem.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

[maggie cruises]

This wasn't asked of me but I'll answer anyway.

"First world Problems" is a dismissive term used to trivialize someones complain or problem.

 

 

 

Agree 1000%

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

[broberts]

One wouldn't need massive amounts food or at least most people wouldn't. No one asked to be accomodated, knowing that they have restricted dietary needs, is their fault and if they did I'd bet NCL would have made accomadations. I didn't hear of anyone dying or having a serious health issue, but it should be a lesson to everyone with dietary restrictions,,,,be prepared, don't assume someone else knows your issues. You might have been hungry, but as others said, they ate when they got home. Don't be a victim, be responsible for your own well-being.

 

You have absolutely no idea what communications passed between NCL and various passengers. It is quite likely that at least some pax with dietary restrictions had made these know to NCL well before the cruise. Why then should they have to restate those restrictions? Did NCL as passengers to provide reminders of restrictions?

 

I understand about not being a victim. But explain to me just how a passenger with dietary requirements/restrictions is supposed to cope when they could not remove food from the ship and likely were given no opportunity to acquire appropriate nourishment en route?

 

It seems like they did the best they could in a bad situation. The mamaged to get thousands of people back to where they were supposed to be with 2 days notice. Of course the flights are going to be at inconvenient times, NYC airports are some of the busiest. This is not a common occurance, or an expected one. It’s not like people were left stranded in a foreign country and left to their own devices. I’m sure folks were scrambling to patch together a plan to get everyone back to the Manhattan cruise terminal by the same time the ship was supposed to arrive back. Sure, it would’ve been nice if it was a smooth, easy task, but I wouldn’t expect it to be. I think NCL did the best they could.

 

How about I do the best I can paying my cruise fare? Don't stop me from going just because I lost my job and may not be able to pay the balance. After all, it's not every day I lose a job. I'm doing the best I can isn't that enough? :rolleyes:

[NLH Arizona]

You have absolutely no idea what communications passed between NCL and various passengers. It is quite likely that at least some pax with dietary restrictions had made these know to NCL well before the cruise. Why then should they have to restate those restrictions? Did NCL as passengers to provide reminders of restrictions?

 

I understand about not being a victim. But explain to me just how a passenger with dietary requirements/restrictions is supposed to cope when they could not remove food from the ship and likely were given no opportunity to acquire appropriate nourishment en route?

 

 

You are correct, we don't know about the communications between passengers and NCL with regard to their dietary restrictions, but I would bet my last dollar if those bringing this up did, we would have heard it loud and clear from the very first post.

 

How would they get it off the ship. First, go to NCL's dining manager and explain your dietairy restrictions or the fact that they have to eat X or Y. NCL would have made sure that they were give proper food and made sure they could take it off the ship, because the one thing they would not want is someone saying that they had conversations with NCL about their restrictions and NCL told them to shove it and they became ill.

[mjkacmom]

You have absolutely no idea what communications passed between NCL and various passengers. It is quite likely that at least some pax with dietary restrictions had made these know to NCL well before the cruise. Why then should they have to restate those restrictions? Did NCL as passengers to provide reminders of restrictions?

 

I understand about not being a victim. But explain to me just how a passenger with dietary requirements/restrictions is supposed to cope when they could not remove food from the ship and likely were given no opportunity to acquire appropriate nourishment en route?

 

 

 

How about I do the best I can paying my cruise fare? Don't stop me from going just because I lost my job and may not be able to pay the balance. After all, it's not every day I lose a job. I'm doing the best I can isn't that enough? :rolleyes:

No because you would be violating the cruise contract if you boarded without paying. How did NCL violate the contract?

[winemama]

Passengers experienced a broken ship and broken rescue organized by NCL on the GEM 11 day sailing round trip from New York on 10/31 to the Caribbean.

 

People were heading to the ship’s medical doctor for stress and it even brought on a panic attack in at least one person. Many people who have never flown in their lives and did not want to fly were told they had no other choice.

 

The passengers became very concerned when the captain announced that they would not be heading to St. Thomas but would stop in Grenada instead due to the ship’s broken azipod. The ship was at the time only doing 7 knots.

 

Many people felt NCL squeezed in Grenada to say they made all five stops instead of letting the passengers enjoy extra time in Barbados where the ship was “destined” to be repaired according to rumor. Additionally, it was also rumored that NCL was aware there were issues but went ahead with this sailing.

 

NCL left as many as 70 people with special diets without food with their “rescue” from Barbados to the US even though they, NCL, have a department onboard for such services.

 

The “inconvenience” started before the 9am flight from Barbados to NY hotels around 6pm NY time. Passengers were told to eat breakfast aboard ship in the early morning hours starting with the first group. I guess as early as 2am? People were able to eat some but due to the early hours it did not work well.

 

 

They had one food choice for everyone including diabetics and Gluten free people on the chartered rescue planes. It was a sandwich, KitKat bar, pretzels and a beverage for hours. One can only say it was truly lovely for gluten free and diabetics! Food was not provided again until 6pm at hotels that also had no accommodation for special needs diets.

 

 

NCL actually had passengers up as early as 2am(???) to go through immigration in groups. We were in the third group that was suppose to be by the bistro at around 5am but the loud speaker came on earlier (no idea what time) and told us to report immediately. The folks that went out in some of the very first groups off the boat ended up being the last to arrive that evening at area hotels. May I say planning???

 

The chaos and lack of planning at the EWR airport left passengers missing the lunch that was scheduled at 2pm-3pm at the provided hotels. One person fell to the ground at the airport due to stress. Many never made it to the assigned hotels before 5:30.

 

NCL has offered a 25 discount opf fare paid on this trip less taxes, port fees, etc., etc., to passengers on their next cruise for their inconvenience, while the upcoming cruise that was cancelled is receiving 50 discount on their next cruise without living through the evacuation.

 

See this news article...

 

http://abc7ny.com/amp/travel/norwegian-gem-passengers-stranded-in-newark/2630677/

We were on this cruise, it was run poorly from beginning to end. Lack of communication from NCL to the staff, to the cruisers and everyone involved was horrible. Yes problems happen, but a multi-million dollar organization should have trained teams in place to handle situation's like this.

[ChiefMike]

We were on this cruise, it was run poorly from beginning to end. Lack of communication from NCL to the staff, to the cruisers and everyone involved was horrible. Yes problems happen, but a multi-million dollar organization should have trained teams in place to handle situation's like this.

 

Accurate depiction. The lack of communication also started before the cruise with their "within 2 weeks" email that turned to 3 and then they started sending my emails to my TA instead of me.

 

It's also not the first time this has happened to them, look at the NCL Star in Jan 2017. Similar situation, PAX got back 100% also.

[maggie cruises]

Just to note regarding the poster who claimed if you are not fit to fly then you should not have checked off on the forms that you were fit to travel

 

 

Not a good argument because the reason they were on a r/t NYC cruise was more than likely because they..cannot...will not...should not....fly. Take your pick

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

[maggie cruises]

Please see my questions above.

It is about the fitness to travel and all that is involved; good and bad.

 

I have been on a ship where things went awry and the sense of entitlement was amazing; people who indicated that they were fit to travel by signing the contract, weren't and blamed the cruise line because they did not get special accommodations.

 

IMO the cruise line did very well with the situation considering the unexpected ship problems. Very difficult to plan for a crisis situation in every port.

 

Safe cruising all!

 

 

 

Fitness to travel on a r/t cruise from NYC and fitness to fly from Barbados to NYC are 2 totally different things

 

You seem to think that only top notch extremely fit healthy people should travel

 

If I can't or won't ski does that mean I should never go to a ski resort? Even if to relax?

 

If I don't go on rides should I never visit Disneyworld?

 

Point being the pax that won't or can't fly took this cruise for that very reason...no flying

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

[broberts]

You are correct, we don't know about the communications between passengers and NCL with regard to their dietary restrictions, but I would bet my last dollar if those bringing this up did, we would have heard it loud and clear from the very first post.

 

How would they get it off the ship. First, go to NCL's dining manager and explain your dietairy restrictions or the fact that they have to eat X or Y. NCL would have made sure that they were give proper food and made sure they could take it off the ship, because the one thing they would not want is someone saying that they had conversations with NCL about their restrictions and NCL told them to shove it and they became ill.

 

And when would these people have the opportunity to check with the Barbadian authorities regarding what foodstuffs can be brought ashore?

 

But that is moot as I believe NCL promised meals in transit. The powers that be apparently did not bother to check with special needs or dining staff when setting this up.

[Loonbeam]

There are a number of issues here:

 

First, a couple of observations

 

1> Communications - they stank. This is the norm for most lines and why lines don't have a REACT team is beyond me.

2> Other than the last day(s), while disrupted, there don't appear to have been major operational issues with the cruise itself

3> The last day-2days was a cluster.... This again seems to be the norm for most lines they just don't have the capability to deal with situations far outside normal operating range. People's experience greatly varied based on their situation and timing.

 

So when I say Issues:

 

What is NCL OBLIGATED to provide (which is different than what should they provide)? Basically per contract they are obligated to provide a certain number of nights of accommodation, food during those nights, and to return to the disembarkation point indicated. Certain rules require reasonable accommodation to disabilities. Note that I did not mention special diets as an obligation.

 

For those people traveling with special diets, it is their responsibility to ensure that their needs are provided. NCL SHOULD have prepared box meals or similar on request but may not have been able to arrange this with the ground authorities or the carrier provider and if unable to provide should have made people aware. I know this seems unfair, but its the way things work. Special diets are a request not an obligation, contractually.

 

For those people who choose not to fly (as opposed to being medically uncleared to fly at all, which is very rare), NCL is under no contractual obligation to provide alternative transport. I am honestly not sure what they would be required to do for someone who truly cannot fly without serious risk of injury or death. This becomes more of a judgement call. In my opinion, if you truly are unable to fly AT ALL, you need to consider only traveling where land transport is available or at least be prepared to find your own alternatives. Yes, this is incredibly limiting, but in some cases like this one there may be scenarios where flights are the only option. Also, in this case I don't think there is another reasonable option that NCL could have provided (chartering or diverting a ship for a few passengers is NOT reasonable).

 

Once the planes landed in NYC, NCL was not obligated to assist with customs/immigration although I hope they would, and I have not seen reports of any issues with people getting back into the US (some people did get extra screening, this is to be expected). NCL was obligated to find housing of decent quality and provide transport to that housing as well as some form of food/food voucher. This is a problem area where people seem to have legitimate concerns that NCL did not live up to obligations. Assuming some pax decided to travel straight home if they could (those with cars, or who could change a flight), I figure NCL needed between 1000-1500 hotel rooms, which will be a challenge in NYC on the best days which explains why people ended up in Newark, etc and accounted for a lot of variance in experience. Staying in times square gives you lots more options than newark airport for example. NCL should have been far more clear in where people were going and provided much more efficient transportation. If there is a compensation issue to raise, this is it. Do note that again, NCL is not OBLIGATED to provide special diets at these venues although they certainly SHOULD assist in doing so.

 

So, compensation...

 

Contractually, NCL is being more than fair. That said, in my opinion, given the significance of the disruption and the fact it appears to be a known mechanical issue, while the amount is fair, the compensation should be in the form of a refund not a cruise credit. In this case, you should not have to spend more money with NCL to take advantage of the compensation. If I was going to press the point, this is the button I would press.

[Laszlo]

I take a few meds, and always make sure I bring at least 7 days extra with me.

 

 

http://abc7ny.com/travel/cruise-nightmare-for-one-new-jersey-family/2648832/

[packer99]

Just to note regarding the poster who claimed if you are not fit to fly then you should not have checked off on the forms that you were fit to travel

 

 

Not a good argument because the reason they were on a r/t NYC cruise was more than likely because they..cannot...will not...should not....fly. Take your pick

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

 

But NCL doesn't know they can't fly. The customer who can't fly should have thought, I am being taken to place that in an emergency, I made need to fly. Isn't that the chance they take then? What if they had an medical emergency, should have NCL have to make special arrangements for another boat to take them to care?

[maggie cruises]

But NCL doesn't know they can't fly. The customer who can't fly should have thought, I am being taken to place that in an emergency, I made need to fly. Isn't that the chance they take then? What if they had an medical emergency, should have NCL have to make special arrangements for another boat to take them to care?

 

 

 

Medevac is totally different and when it happens it's a medical emergency so to compare it to this current situation is not relevant

 

What ncl did by keeping the pax who were unable to fly on Barbados was the correct thing to do. Those pax could not be forced to fly home and ncl was responsible for them and their safety as the ships problems were Ncl's fault not the pax fault

 

Bottom line is those pax were not forced to fly

 

Therefore did not have to preplan for the "what if I need to fly home and there is no other choice" scenario

 

There was another choice and it was utilized

 

It was not a Med emergency so the pax were within their rights to refuse to fly

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

[xriva]

Medevac is totally different and when it happens it's a medical emergency so to compare it to this current situation is not relevant

 

What ncl did by keeping the pax who were unable to fly on Barbados was the correct thing to do. Those pax could not be forced to fly home and ncl was responsible for them and their safety as the ships problems were Ncl's fault not the pax fault

 

Bottom line is those pax were not forced to fly

 

Therefore did not have to preplan for the "what if I need to fly home and there is no other choice" scenario

 

There was another choice and it was utilized

 

It was not a Med emergency so the pax were within their rights to refuse to fly

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

 

 

It is a medical emergency if they do not have required medical supplies or prescription drugs with them. If they have medical needs that they can’t cover, they need to go home ASAP. That means fly. So, they should plan.

 

This is a pointless argument but you should realize that people are bitching about being “stranded on an island” because they won’t fly. Some (reportedly one) is running low on prescription meds. THAT’S PLANNING THAT IS REQUIRED.

 

You can’t say “they didn’t have to fly, so they don’t need to plan to fly.” They are spending extra days away from home and they are medically unprepared. It’s on them.

 

Why they don’t get a prescription called in to a local pharmacy is beyond me.

 

If you have daily medication that you depend on, you need to have extra meds with you. I take at least an extra four days worth with me and I will fly, so if we make it to a port, I’ll be fine.

 

They could have been home in hours if they had gotten on the plane. They would have been fine if they would have planned.

 

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

[broberts]

...They could have been home in hours if they had gotten on the plane. They would have been fine if they would have planned.

Sent from my iPad using Forums

 

I simply fail to understand those who cannot accept that there may be people unable to fly. I can think of a number of medical conditions with which flying is unbearably painful or simply dangerous. And that doesn't begin to tap into the various psychosis that may preclude flying.

 

How comprehensive a plan? Should we plan for the cruise ship sinking? The airplane being hijacked? Being kidnapped? Or a coup while ashore? How low a probability must be considered?

[xriva]

I simply fail to understand those who cannot accept that there may be people unable to fly. I can think of a number of medical conditions with which flying is unbearably painful or simply dangerous. And that doesn't begin to tap into the various psychosis that may preclude flying.

 

 

 

How comprehensive a plan? Should we plan for the cruise ship sinking? The airplane being hijacked? Being kidnapped? Or a coup while ashore? How low a probability must be considered?

 

 

I can accept it. However, if you know you can’t fly, then you need to take precautions in case of emergencies. One precaution that anyone on medication for a chronic condition should take is to have extra medication with them.

 

There are an infinite number of things that can disrupt a holiday. A little basic preventive planning should not be an surprising suggestion.

 

Taking a round-trip cruise because you won’t fly is fine, but you have to consider the remote chance that you’re delayed or diverted. It’s not like taking the train, where you can just get on a bus, instead.

 

Assuming everything will work 100% of the time is insanity. This does not mean never go anywhere - it just means prepare for the worst, and plan for the best.

 

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

[calmpets]

I simply fail to understand those who cannot accept that there may be people unable to fly. I can think of a number of medical conditions with which flying is unbearably painful or simply dangerous. And that doesn't begin to tap into the various psychosis that may preclude flying.

I posted a link to this info earlier in the thread, but I am not sure the link came through. In any case, here is the official list of reasons you should not fly, per the CDC. There is almost nothing on this list that is okay to cruise with, but not okay to fly with, unless you have developed symptoms of one of these issues during the cruise.

 

In general, you should not travel by air if you:

• 
  
  • Will be taking a baby less than 48 hours (2 days) old
    
  • Have passed 36 weeks of pregnancy (or 32 weeks if you are carrying twins, triplets, etc.)
    
  • Have recently had any type of surgery, especially stomach, brain, eye, or orthopedic (bone and joint) surgery. Check with your doctor to see when it is safe for you to travel.
    
  • Have had a recent stomach, eye, or head injury. Check with your doctor to see when it is safe for you to travel.
    
  • Have had a recent heart attack or stroke
    
  • Are suffering from:
    
    • Chest pain
      
    • Any disease that you can easily spread to other people (For a listing of infectious diseases, how they are spread, and how long someone is contagious, see Understand How Infectious Diseases Are Spread.)
      
    • Swelling of the brain caused by bleeding, injury, or infection
      
    • Severe sinus, ear, or nose infections
      
    • Severe chronic respiratory diseases, breathlessness at rest, or a collapsed lung
      
    • Sickle cell disease
      
    • Psychotic illness except when fully controlled
      

     

    [*]Have a fever of 100° F (38° C) or greater AND one or more of the following:

    • Obvious signs of illness (e.g., severe headache, weakness, skin and eyes turning yellow)
      
    • Skin rash
      
    • Shortness of breath or difficulty breathing
      
    • Persistent, severe cough
      
    • Confusion, especially if it has just started
      
    • Bruising or bleeding (without previous injury)
      
    • Diarrhea that does not go away
      
    • Vomiting that does not go away (other than motion sickness
      

     

   

That being the case, the overwhelming majority of people "stuck" on Barbados, are likely to be people who just don't like flying, not people with actual maladies preventing it. I am guessing that is why you are seeing such limited sympathy for them.

[maggie cruises]

I posted a link to this info earlier in the thread, but I am not sure the link came through. In any case, here is the official list of reasons you should not fly, per the CDC. There is almost nothing on this list that is okay to cruise with, but not okay to fly with, unless you have developed symptoms of one of these issues during the cruise.

 

 

 

In general, you should not travel by air if you:

 

 

• 
   
  
• 
   
  
  • 
     
    
  • Will be taking a baby less than 48 hours (2 days) old
     
    
  • Have passed 36 weeks of pregnancy (or 32 weeks if you are carrying twins, triplets, etc.)
     
    
  • Have recently had any type of surgery, especially stomach, brain, eye, or orthopedic (bone and joint) surgery. Check with your doctor to see when it is safe for you to travel.
     
    
  • Have had a recent stomach, eye, or head injury. Check with your doctor to see when it is safe for you to travel.
     
    
  • Have had a recent heart attack or stroke
     
    
  • Are suffering from:
     
    
    • 
       
      
    • Chest pain
       
      
    • Any disease that you can easily spread to other people (For a listing of infectious diseases, how they are spread, and how long someone is contagious, see Understand How Infectious Diseases Are Spread.)
       
      
    • Swelling of the brain caused by bleeding, injury, or infection
       
      
    • Severe sinus, ear, or nose infections
       
      
    • Severe chronic respiratory diseases, breathlessness at rest, or a collapsed lung
       
      
    • Sickle cell disease
       
      
    • Psychotic illness except when fully controlled
       
      

     

     

     

    [*]Have a fever of 100° F (38° C) or greater AND one or more of the following:

     

    • 
       
      
    • Obvious signs of illness (e.g., severe headache, weakness, skin and eyes turning yellow)
       
      
    • Skin rash
       
      
    • Shortness of breath or difficulty breathing
       
      
    • Persistent, severe cough
       
      
    • Confusion, especially if it has just started
       
      
    • Bruising or bleeding (without previous injury)
       
      
    • Diarrhea that does not go away
       
      
    • Vomiting that does not go away (other than motion sickness
       
      

     

     

     

   

   

   

 

That being the case, the overwhelming majority of people "stuck" on Barbados, are likely to be people who just don't like flying, not people with actual maladies preventing it. I am guessing that is why you are seeing such limited sympathy for them.

 

 

 

That is a rude heartless and selfish comment

 

You have absolutely no idea who is on Barbados and why they couldn't or wouldn't fly.

 

Even I am sympathetic toward those on Barbados and sympathy is not my strong point

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

[packer99]

I can accept it. However, if you know you can’t fly, then you need to take precautions in case of emergencies. One precaution that anyone on medication for a chronic condition should take is to have extra medication with them.

 

There are an infinite number of things that can disrupt a holiday. A little basic preventive planning should not be an surprising suggestion.

 

Taking a round-trip cruise because you won’t fly is fine, but you have to consider the remote chance that you’re delayed or diverted. It’s not like taking the train, where you can just get on a bus, instead.

 

Assuming everything will work 100% of the time is insanity. This does not mean never go anywhere - it just means prepare for the worst, and plan for the best.

 

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

 

I agree. I think if you can't fly and chose to be on a cruise that in an emergency, you are stuck there, its the chance you take. I saw on another thread that the Gem is on its way back to NY and that poster said their experience has been great. I bet this person either had the time to stay on the ship or recognized this is the circumstance they ended up in because they didn't/couldn't fly. Personally, if I knew I absolutely couldn't fly, I wouldn't be going on a cruise where I could get stranded on an island and the fastest way out was by plane. It is the chance you take.

[Laszlo]

I agree. I think if you can't fly and chose to be on a cruise that in an emergency, you are stuck there, its the chance you take. I saw on another thread that the Gem is on its way back to NY and that poster said their experience has been great. I bet this person either had the time to stay on the ship or recognized this is the circumstance they ended up in because they didn't/couldn't fly. Personally, if I knew I absolutely couldn't fly, I wouldn't be going on a cruise where I could get stranded on an island and the fastest way out was by plane. It is the chance you take.

 

 

Sounds like a great time with 28 pax onboard. I would have stayed in a heartbeat!

[pokerpro5]

First off, LOL at this:

 

NCL has offered a 25 discount off fare paid on this trip less taxes, port fees, etc., etc., to passengers on their next cruise for their inconvenience, while the upcoming cruise that was cancelled is receiving 50 discount on their next cruise without living through the evacuation.

 

I don't understand. Why are people getting a 50% discount who didn't even take the cruise, while those who had their cruise cut short and had to be "evacuated" in Barbados got 25% off fare already paid?

 

I mean, I get that the people with the upcoming cruise probably had flights they had to cancel and eat the change fees, so I understand why they were compensated, but honestly it should have been more than 25% for those on the cruise.

 

But in addition to having their cruise cut short, they also had to endure the long waits to fly out of there, didn't get what they paid for regarding the cruise length, and basically had their entire vacatio disrupted. So 25% back is pretty much a joke, and NCL should be ashamed of themselves.

 

With that said, I have to laugh at those who are saying it's NCL's problem that they have dietary restrictions or are afraid to fly.

 

If you have a psychological issue with flying, or if you have an unusual dietary issue, it is your choice to cruise despite that. When you cruise, you need to be aware that things like this can happen. You are by no means guaranteed to avoid flying and/or stuck in a place without your dietary needs. If you are unwilling to take this risk, you should not cruise. Your personal problems do not become NCL's when the unexpected happens.

 

If you're afraid of flying, you're probably better off taking bus/driving trips, or sticking to cruises which hug the coast and never end up on islands. Then you'll always be able to avoid flying.

[twincheryl]

For those who were on this cruise... were you given the option of making your own flight arrangements, at your own expense, and getting travel insurance reimbursement later? A relaxing debarkation, maybe a stay overnight in a hotel, and taking a flight of your choosing the following day? Surprised that nobody posted about doing that... might have been worth it even without travel insurance.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

[buggins0402]

For those who were on this cruise... were you given the option of making your own flight arrangements, at your own expense, and getting travel insurance reimbursement later? A relaxing debarkation, maybe a stay overnight in a hotel, and taking a flight of your choosing the following day? Surprised that nobody posted about doing that... might have been worth it even without travel insurance.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

 

Correct me if I’m wrong...but, I think they flew people to NYC to complete disembarkation. If you flew on your own, insurance might not pay because the company fulfilled its contract to get you to that port.