Passengers on Norwegian Spirit is mad about itinerary changes

[newmexicoNita]

19 hours ago, salty dingo said:

That's not a realistic option. When taking a cruise, passengers basically give away any legal rights to sue as they could normally do on land. The maritime law is different and the ship's flag (Bahamas, I think) dictates which courts handle the dispute.

 

So lots of luck with the "legal action"!

totally agree: anyone in their right mind or thinking straight knows there is no legal action that can be taken regardless of where the ship is registered. Can anyone, talking about legal action realize this would just open up a can of worms and people would be suing cruise lines on a weekly basis?  

[newmexicoNita]

15 hours ago, CHOPPERTESTER said:

Bad situation all around.

 

NCL has to return port charges for ports not visited and for ship excursions not provided. Not out of the goodness of the heart but required by the cruise contract.

 

Missing ports, diverted ports/timings for weather is just bad luck and NCL is, of course, allowed to do so in the cruise contract.

 

Issue is the cruise included visits to Iceland which was cancelled all together. Those types of itineraries (Iceland, Greenland etc) typically come at a premium of 30 to 50% more than equivalent length Baltic or Med cruises. Doesn’t cost NCL more to run a 14-day cruise to Iceland than Sardinia but they do charge a premium due to the itinerary. Supply and demand allows them to.

 

Nice of them to only offer 25% future cruise credit and keep the additional 5 to 25% premium the cruisers paid.

Have you sailed on a cruise where ports have been missed due to weather? obviously not. The fact thtt NCL is offering any discount on future cruises is more than some lines do or would do. All NCL owes the passengers is the port charges and cancelled tour money back. This has nothing to do with how much what costs or why. 

[onetimearoundtheworld]

I’m always surprised that with guests from dozens of different countries booked through offices in different legislative systems people on this board always know exactly how a potential lawsuit around the world will end. 
 

Apart from that it is somehow embarrassing when people seriously believe that missing a port on a seven day drink and gamble run to the Caribbean where the highlight of the trip is getting skin cancer on a beach is comparable to missing three days in Iceland on a cruise marketed as an Iceland cruise. 🤷‍♂️ 

It would be interested to see how that ends up in court but I am pretty certain NCL will settle a refund with affected guests outside of that. Otherwise the question would not be of they could have gone to the ports, I don’t doubt it wasn’t possible, but at what times NCL decided what itinerary change and if it always was in the best guests interest in regard of replacement ports and tried dockings. 

 

[david_sobe]

33 minutes ago, onetimearoundtheworld said:

I’m always surprised that with guests from dozens of different countries booked through offices in different legislative systems people on this board always know exactly how a potential lawsuit around the world will end. 
 

Apart from that it is somehow embarrassing when people seriously believe that missing a port on a seven day drink and gamble run to the Caribbean where the highlight of the trip is getting skin cancer on a beach is comparable to missing three days in Iceland on a cruise marketed as an Iceland cruise. 🤷‍♂️ 

It would be interested to see how that ends up in court but I am pretty certain NCL will settle a refund with affected guests outside of that. Otherwise the question would not be of they could have gone to the ports, I don’t doubt it wasn’t possible, but at what times NCL decided what itinerary change and if it always was in the best guests interest in regard of replacement ports and tried dockings. 

 

It was in the guests best interest to keep them out of dangerous high seas.  Ships like aircraft are constantly tracking weather and there are constant course changes by the minute and hour.  Your post almost hints at a conspiracy theory as if NCL had a secret hidden agenda to cancel ports and kept it from passengers.  What motive would there to be to make their own passengers unhappy?  You can only dock a ship where you are ALLOWED to dock a ship.  Its not like you are driving a bus down the road and have the freedom to stop anywhere you want.  The argument is silly.  When the port of Miami was closed because of Dorian people still blamed NCL.  "They should have known" (yeah ok they are psychic and mind readers).

Also your comparison Iceland vs Caribbean is very subjective.  You allege missing a port in the Caribbean is nothing because you can get skin cancer and Iceland is so much better.  There are many that may disagree and say Iceland is nothing but dark skies and dead trees.  That statement would be just as ridiculous as your skin cancer analogy 😣

Edited October 12, 2019 by david_sobe

[2spring]

6 hours ago, kitkat343 said:

Could someone who sailed on this cruise please help me out, as I was really confused by a NY Post article (note:  the NY Post is really a terrible newspaper so they might have just completely screwed up in their article)

 

Their article on this cruise included the following statement:

 

"Some of the 2,000 passengers said the ship eventually stopped in the remote Norwegian villages of Flåm and Geiranger — far from the promised “mystical fjords.”"  This quote is really confusing to me since I was under the impression that Flam and Geiranger are two of the most beautiful heritage fjords, and they were the highlight of my Norway cruise.  Was the tourist infrastructure closed in those ports since the cruise visited in October?    Could someone please list where the original cruise was supposed to visit and what stops were used to replace them (I do understand NCL had the right to substitute ports, but I'm wondering how much worse the substitute ports were, as I really loved my visits to both Geiranger and Flam.   

I was on the cruise for the entire 2 weeks.  The ports of call were originally Amsterdam, then Bergen, Flam, and Geiranger Norway 3 days in succession, Akureyri and Reykjavik Iceland, Belfast and Dublin, Ireland.  LeHavre was substituted for Amsterdam, but by the time we got there, the weather was too rough to dock.  We sailed to our 3 ports in Norway and I shopped at the stores and had 3 beautiful excursions!  Flam even had “The Mall of Norway” right adjacent to the port.  It was announced while we were in Norway that the weather would have high winds & waves on our return itinerary from Iceland, so for safety of the passengers, Iceland was cancelled.  Instead, we sailed to Hellesylt, then Aselund, Norway, again with stunning beauty!  The only light rain I remember (with the emphasis on light) was on our walking tour in Bergen.  Next we were to have 2 sea days then stop in Greenock, Scotland to also make up for missed ports.  We sailed into the harbor and it was announced that a Naval vessel was at the dock we needed and it needed repairs.  They said they figured our new arrival time would be 1-1/2 hour later.  As we waited, the seas became really rough and the fog rolled in.  I believe we had the port pilot onboard.  It was announced to be too dangerous to dock.  That’s when all the rioting began.  I hear calls of “REVOLUTION!” In the stairwells.  My husband and I chose to stay away.  We had 1 more Sea day, then arrived in Belfast, Ireland.  It did have some rain for a bit, but by the time we arrived at our tour destination, it was gone.  The following day was Dublin, with partly cloudy weather to beautiful blue skies and , later, a few drops of rain.  We had one Sea day as we sailed back to Southampton.  Hope that clears it up for you!

[CruisingAlong4Now]

What did NCL know and when did they know it?  One of the issues is: did NCL know before sailing that the ports would be missed and Iceland totally scrubbed?  If so, passengers would at least have had the opportunity to decide if they wanted to sail anyway.

 

Very much like a river cruise with high or low water. You fly over to Europe to board your very expensive river boat for a lovely relaxing cruise, and find out that the water level doesn't permit the boat to sail.  Instead daily you are bussed from crummy hotel to crummy hotel along the river. The anger isn't that the river and the weather gods aren't cooperating, but that your choice whether or not to go has been taken from you.  Bus tour, rent a car and travel on your own, or go home.

Edited October 12, 2019 by CruisingAlong4Now

[evandbob]

If I had been on this cruise, with 20 plus foot waves bouncing the ship causing damage to the furnishings and making it impossible to be out on deck or  enjoy the casino, theater, dining, etc., I would not be a happy cruiser.  Missing the major ports of all of Iceland would only add to my disappointment.  I can empathize with those on board who had to deal with these horrid conditions.

 

However, I do not condone the manner in which some of the pax expressed their feelings.  In fact, those who crossed the line from peaceful expression to blatant rudeness and worse should be banned from sailing NCL (and possibly other lines as well).

 

I do wonder if the cruise lines' alcohol packages had anything to do with how pax conducted themselves.

 

 

 

 

[mjkacmom]

22 minutes ago, CruisingAlong4Now said:

What did NCL know and when did they know it?  One of the issues is: did NCL know before sailing that the ports would be missed and Iceland totally scrubbed?  If so, passengers would at least have had the opportunity to decide if they wanted to sail anyway.

 

Very much like a river cruise with high or low water. You fly over to Europe to board your very expensive river boat for a lovely relaxing cruise, and find out that the water level doesn't permit the boat to sail.  Instead daily you are bussed from crummy hotel to crummy hotel along the river. The anger isn't that the river and the weather gods aren't cooperating, but that your choice whether or not to go has been taken from you.  Bus tour, rent a car and travel on your own, or go home.

So you think folks would rather miss out on the cruise with no refund than sail an altered itinerary? We are talking fall weather which can be very unpredictable, heck I don’t even bother to check it more than a day in advance this time of year.

[david_sobe]

1 hour ago, mjkacmom said:

So you think folks would rather miss out on the cruise with no refund than sail an altered itinerary? We are talking fall weather which can be very unpredictable, heck I don’t even bother to check it more than a day in advance this time of year.

Exactly. Unless you have the "cancel for any reason" insurance, those who cancelled their cruise on embarkation day would lose everything.  No refund and no cruise.  Makes no sense.  I seriously cannot believe we are even discussing this topic.  The seas were so dangerous ports were cancelled.  No one remembers the Viking cruise?  The same people crying REVOLUTION would be screaming for their lives if the captain risked it. 

[ClevelandCruisin]

Wonder if these people who did root will be banned from future cruising with Norwegian...

[newmexicoNita]

5 hours ago, onetimearoundtheworld said:

I’m always surprised that with guests from dozens of different countries booked through offices in different legislative systems people on this board always know exactly how a potential lawsuit around the world will end. 
 

Apart from that it is somehow embarrassing when people seriously believe that missing a port on a seven day drink and gamble run to the Caribbean where the highlight of the trip is getting skin cancer on a beach is comparable to missing three days in Iceland on a cruise marketed as an Iceland cruise. 🤷‍♂️ 

It would be interested to see how that ends up in court but I am pretty certain NCL will settle a refund with affected guests outside of that. Otherwise the question would not be of they could have gone to the ports, I don’t doubt it wasn’t possible, but at what times NCL decided what itinerary change and if it always was in the best guests interest in regard of replacement ports and tried dockings. 

 

We were on the first Jewel cruse when they left England heading for the US> We missed New Finland which was so disappointing to many and some were really upset as it was the port so many wanted to see and everyone or a lot of people wanted a refund. Guess what, except for port fees we got nothing and I doubt any of us lost sleep over it. A similar situation happened about 5 years ago when we were heading form Canada to the US on Princess. Yes we hated missing a port but again, we survived and had a very good cruise. Anyone who is rioting over what happened needs to grow up and realize the world does not revolve around them. 

[sailingskyward]

As has been stated above, everyone onboard a cruise ship agreed to the Terms & Conditions and Contract of Carriage when they booked their cruise. Most any cruise line will put safety before all else. Passengers seem to forget, the cruise line wants to dock/tender at the port more than the passengers do. Arriving into a port means they will earn revenue from shore excursions, which brings in a sizeable percentage of operating profits. When a port is skipped, they lose the opportunity to make that revenue. 

 

The key issues, however, are more likely how NCL handled things once it was apparent there would need to be alterations to the itinerary. 

 

As I understand it from both the news reports and the comments of individuals who were on this particular cruise, the passengers were upset because NCL should have disclosed to embarking guests at the cruise terminal that the voyage would be altered and that Iceland would be skipped, thus allowing guests to choose whether they wanted to even go on the voyage at all. NCL, like many major cruise lines, has advanced meteorological forecasting capabilities and could have predicted there would be an itinerary change. That doesn't mean people would have been due a refund for refusing to sail. It just means they could have made that decision whether to sail or abandon the cruise altogether. I recall a Holland America cruise itinerary out of San Diego (7-day Mexican Riviera) was altered to become a Pacific Coastal (LA, Santa Barbara, Monterey, San Francisco) and passengers embarking in San Diego were notified prior to checkin that this change would occur as a result of an impending hurricane approaching Mexico. Those passengers were given the choice to sail or not, but no refunds were due or expected. Some passengers chose to abandon the cruise, which I can understand if all they wanted was a sun-drenched Mexican Riviera cruise. 

[Newleno]

Fake news media got a lot of play on this one, after all thats the point of media these days, either try to get ratings at all cost, or push an agenda, i hope the passengers were banned and/or arrested.

[APDMOM]

3 hours ago, evandbob said:

If I had been on this cruise, with 20 plus foot waves bouncing the ship causing damage to the furnishings and making it impossible to be out on deck or  enjoy the casino, theater, dining, etc., I would not be a happy cruiser.  Missing the major ports of all of Iceland would only add to my disappointment.  I can empathize with those on board who had to deal with these horrid conditions.

 

However, I do not condone the manner in which some of the pax expressed their feelings.  In fact, those who crossed the line from peaceful expression to blatant rudeness and worse should be banned from sailing NCL (and possibly other lines as well).

 

I do wonder if the cruise lines' alcohol packages had anything to do with how pax conducted themselves.

 

 

 

 

I don’t know where you saw they had encountered 20 foot waves.  They cancelled iceland to avoid the 20 ft waves (which ended up being closer to 30 ft waves, so a good call to cancel, for sure).

[Wehwalt]

I also agree with those who say that many passengers took it too far. I hope they make good use of facial recognition software with bans to follow.

[Doris&Nereus]

5 hours ago, 2spring said:

I was on the cruise for the entire 2 weeks.  The ports of call were originally Amsterdam, then Bergen, Flam, and Geiranger Norway 3 days in succession, Akureyri and Reykjavik Iceland, Belfast and Dublin, Ireland.  LeHavre was substituted for Amsterdam, but by the time we got there, the weather was too rough to dock.  We sailed to our 3 ports in Norway and I shopped at the stores and had 3 beautiful excursions!  Flam even had “The Mall of Norway” right adjacent to the port.  It was announced while we were in Norway that the weather would have high winds & waves on our return itinerary from Iceland, so for safety of the passengers, Iceland was cancelled.  Instead, we sailed to Hellesylt, then Aselund, Norway, again with stunning beauty!  The only light rain I remember (with the emphasis on light) was on our walking tour in Bergen.  Next we were to have 2 sea days then stop in Greenock, Scotland to also make up for missed ports.  We sailed into the harbor and it was announced that a Naval vessel was at the dock we needed and it needed repairs.  They said they figured our new arrival time would be 1-1/2 hour later.  As we waited, the seas became really rough and the fog rolled in.  I believe we had the port pilot onboard.  It was announced to be too dangerous to dock.  That’s when all the rioting began.  I hear calls of “REVOLUTION!” In the stairwells.  My husband and I chose to stay away.  We had 1 more Sea day, then arrived in Belfast, Ireland.  It did have some rain for a bit, but by the time we arrived at our tour destination, it was gone.  The following day was Dublin, with partly cloudy weather to beautiful blue skies and , later, a few drops of rain.  We had one Sea day as we sailed back to Southampton.  Hope that clears it up for you!

 

Edited October 12, 2019 by Doris&Nereus
sorry

[lanceholt]

12 hours ago, kitkat343 said:

Could someone who sailed on this cruise please help me out, as I was really confused by a NY Post article (note:  the NY Post is really a terrible newspaper so they might have just completely screwed up in their article)

 

Their article on this cruise included the following statement:

 

"Some of the 2,000 passengers said the ship eventually stopped in the remote Norwegian villages of Flåm and Geiranger — far from the promised “mystical fjords.”"  This quote is really confusing to me since I was under the impression that Flam and Geiranger are two of the most beautiful heritage fjords, and they were the highlight of my Norway cruise.  Was the tourist infrastructure closed in those ports since the cruise visited in October?    Could someone please list where the original cruise was supposed to visit and what stops were used to replace them (I do understand NCL had the right to substitute ports, but I'm wondering how much worse the substitute ports were, as I really loved my visits to both Geiranger and Flam.   

We visited Geiranger Fijord on our Sept 1 Spirit cruise, and it was really beautiful, absolutely mystical!

[Doris&Nereus]

2 minutes ago, Doris&Nereus said:

 

It looks like you had 8 beautiful ports in 2 weeks.  I would have loved to be on that trip. I know that everyone wants to see Iceland, but when I was there, it was very cold, and if there were a storm there, I think you couldn't see or do that much. But, I don't want to be around when there's a riot on a ship. That's crazy. Maybe they should limit the drink package until after 5. 

[ehogan]

We experienced very rough weather throughout a Princess Transatlantic that started Sept 22 in Southampton.  First the tail end of a hurricane prevented docking at Portland, England and then we missed Ponte Delgarda since our Captain significantly altered course south to avoid Hurricane Lorenzo.  

 

I have to say I am very thankful he made those decisions for our safety and I dont recall hearing a single complaint by passengers.  

 

However I probably  will never take an autumn transatlantic again.

 

 

[mugtech]

1 hour ago, ehogan said:

However I probably  will never take an autumn transatlantic again.

 

 

We cruise end of October through May, avoid the June-August family crowds and high prices plus the September into October hurricane and typhoon season peaks.

[Harratine]

Sorry to hear that ports were cancelled.  Weather is getting worse and this causes more issues. I think NCL handled it well, maybe communicate more, but seemed fair.  

[Cruisercl]

9 hours ago, onetimearoundtheworld said:

I’m always surprised that with guests from dozens of different countries booked through offices in different legislative systems people on this board always know exactly how a potential lawsuit around the world will end. 
 

Apart from that it is somehow embarrassing when people seriously believe that missing a port on a seven day drink and gamble run to the Caribbean where the highlight of the trip is getting skin cancer on a beach is comparable to missing three days in Iceland on a cruise marketed as an Iceland cruise. 🤷‍♂️ 

It would be interested to see how that ends up in court but I am pretty certain NCL will settle a refund with affected guests outside of that. Otherwise the question would not be of they could have gone to the ports, I don’t doubt it wasn’t possible, but at what times NCL decided what itinerary change and if it always was in the best guests interest in regard of replacement ports and tried dockings. 

 

What?

[NSWP]

At the end of the day I reckon NCL will increase their comp offer from 24% to 50% to calm the storm and in order to retain customers.

[Wehwalt]

3 minutes ago, NSWP said:

At the end of the day I reckon NCL will increase their comp offer from 24% to 50% to calm the storm and in order to retain customers.

I think people are looking for free stuff now, not discounted next time. 

[kitkat343]

9 hours ago, 2spring said:

I was on the cruise for the entire 2 weeks.  The ports of call were originally Amsterdam, then Bergen, Flam, and Geiranger Norway 3 days in succession, Akureyri and Reykjavik Iceland, Belfast and Dublin, Ireland.  LeHavre was substituted for Amsterdam, but by the time we got there, the weather was too rough to dock.  We sailed to our 3 ports in Norway and I shopped at the stores and had 3 beautiful excursions!  Flam even had “The Mall of Norway” right adjacent to the port.  It was announced while we were in Norway that the weather would have high winds & waves on our return itinerary from Iceland, so for safety of the passengers, Iceland was cancelled.  Instead, we sailed to Hellesylt, then Aselund, Norway, again with stunning beauty!  The only light rain I remember (with the emphasis on light) was on our walking tour in Bergen.  Next we were to have 2 sea days then stop in Greenock, Scotland to also make up for missed ports.  We sailed into the harbor and it was announced that a Naval vessel was at the dock we needed and it needed repairs.  They said they figured our new arrival time would be 1-1/2 hour later.  As we waited, the seas became really rough and the fog rolled in.  I believe we had the port pilot onboard.  It was announced to be too dangerous to dock.  That’s when all the rioting began.  I hear calls of “REVOLUTION!” In the stairwells.  My husband and I chose to stay away.  We had 1 more Sea day, then arrived in Belfast, Ireland.  It did have some rain for a bit, but by the time we arrived at our tour destination, it was gone.  The following day was Dublin, with partly cloudy weather to beautiful blue skies and , later, a few drops of rain.  We had one Sea day as we sailed back to Southampton.  Hope that clears it up for you!

Thanks for that.  Bergen, Aselund, Flam and Geiranger would have been a lovely 7 day fjord cruise, but you didn't sign up for that, so it is understandable that this was quite disappointing over two weeks, with the omission of the other countries and the uncomfortable sailing conditions.  

Edited October 12, 2019 by kitkat343