Just got canceled

[vacation44]

12 hours ago, scooter6139 said:

What did they offer the OP for this cancellation?  I haven't seen them back on this thread yet.  I would assume a full refund and either some OBC or FCC to use on a future cruise?

 

 

It was reported a while back when they first started cancel reservations, they were given a refund (on how it was paid) along with a 100% FCC.   If I remember correctly, something towards booked airfare too.

[DCGuy64]

12 hours ago, hallux said:

and are getting every penny back, or should be.

You really think the HR team is just sitting on their hands rather than working their tails off to fill positions?  This ship is an especially challenging one to fill positions on because they can't hold job fairs in 10 countries to hire staff, they need to hold job fairs in the US to fill positions on this ship.

Yeah, people saying NCL should just "fix it" are living in a dream world. I've got news for them: staffing shortages are happening all over the country right now. I see "help wanted" signs everywhere here in the DC area. Our last flight, from DC to Hilton Head, left from Reagan National airport and we were delayed by several hours because they couldn't find flight crews. Restaurants in HH were warning people of delays getting their food because there weren't enough servers. There is a serious shortage of workers in this country and inevitably it's going to impact the cruise industry.

[LGW59]

2 minutes ago, vacation44 said:

It was reported a while back when they first started cancel reservations, they were given a refund (on how it was paid) along with a 100% FCC.   If I remember correctly, something towards booked airfare too.

If that’s accurate, then it is more than generous 

[vacation44]

Just now, LGW59 said:

If that’s accurate, then it is more than generous 

It is definitely about the 100% FCC, but not 100% sure about the airfare.    I remember that a lot of people suggested NCL ask for volunteers to cancel as they would be willing for the 100% FCC.  We thought the same thing as we had a POA booked for March 2023 but switched to another itinerary. 

[PATRLR]

22 hours ago, LGW59 said:

Your being a "platinum"  🙄 member has nothing to do with the cruise being canceled.   

 

21 hours ago, LGW59 said:

So what, the OP's status still means nothing  

It should mean something.  If not, get rid of the "loyalty" program because then clearly there is no loyalty.
 

13 hours ago, UKstages said:

in an "oversold" situation, when a hospitality company can't accommodate all booked customers, it is common for those with status (with airlines and hotels, for instance) to be "bumped" or "walked" as a very last resort... regardless of when the booking was made or the price the customer paid

Exactly.  
 

13 hours ago, ChiefMateJRK said:

I think the problem is that they don't know what "current staffing capacity" is for any given future cruise.  They know what staff they have on the ship this week.  Next week?  Who knows?

Well that's a helluva a way to run a business.  
 

25 minutes ago, vacation44 said:

I remember that a lot of people suggested NCL ask for volunteers to cancel as they would be willing for the 100% FCC.  We thought the same thing as we had a POA booked for March 2023 but switched to another itinerary. 

That's what the airlines do in an oversold situation.  The difference is, government regulations are much harder on the airlines for Involuntary Denied Boarding (IDB) than cruise lines.  So the airlines have incentive to avoid IDBs.   I can't imagine we'd ever see such regulations for cruise lines.

 

[LGW59]

1 hour ago, PATRLR said:

 

It should mean something.  If not, get rid of the "loyalty" program because then clearly there is no loyalty.
 

Exactly.  
 

Well that's a helluva a way to run a business.  
 

That's what the airlines do in an oversold situation.  The difference is, government regulations are much harder on the airlines for Involuntary Denied Boarding (IDB) than cruise lines.  So the airlines have incentive to avoid IDBs.   I can't imagine we'd ever see such regulations for cruise lines.

 

And cruise lines as we know, fly the flags of convenience, thus they are not beholden to US laws in this regard, we make reservations knowing that and we then have to deal with our decisions.  There are also those pesky T&C's that many don't read but find a way to complain about if/when they are implemented.

[PATRLR]

17 minutes ago, LGW59 said:

And cruise lines as we know, fly the flags of convenience, thus they are not beholden to US laws in this regard

If "in this regards" refers to my comparison to the airlines and US regulations imposed on them, I'll remind you that the majority of airlines doing business in the United States are foreign entities and they are beholden to US regulations.  

Look - I'm not saying the cruise lines are or should be regulated like airlines.  I was just explaining one reason airlines are much more interested in avoiding IDBs than cruise lines are.

 

[LGW59]

16 minutes ago, PATRLR said:

If "in this regards" refers to my comparison to the airlines and US regulations imposed on them, I'll remind you that the majority of airlines doing business in the United States are foreign entities and they are beholden to US regulations.  

Look - I'm not saying the cruise lines are or should be regulated like airlines.  I was just explaining one reason airlines are much more interested in avoiding IDBs than cruise lines are.

 

Don't believe that I quoted you or anyone else.  

[BermudaBound2014]

I'm just going to toss this out there, feel free to ignore:

 

I'd be very cautious accepting FCC over cash for this sailing. The quarterly release yesterday was troubling. Insiders are selling. More dilution is inevitable. I believe (and have believed since 2020) that restructuring the cruise lines is an option on the table. I'm not saying all FCC would become worthless, but it's a possibility. Cash in hand from cruise lines is always going to be the safest bet, especially over the next year when we will start to know how it all shakes out.

[DCGuy64]

If I've learned one thing by being a member of Cruise Critic, it's that it proves the old adage: "you can please some people all of the time, you can please all of the people some of the time, but you can't please all of the people all of the time." People can demand that the cruise lines explicitly detail what they'll do for every possible eventuality, but then they'll complain the fine print is too long and won't read it (but still feel righteous indignation when the cruise line points out where they already accounted for that). Somebody right now is mad that NCL didn't write out all of the specifics regarding testing for Bermuda. People will complain that NCL should swap out Coke for Pepsi and vice versa. They'll complain when a cruise is cancelled altogether because they don't have the staff, and will say it should sail at less than capacity, and then complain then they do exactly that. I think all of the people who second guess and complain should quit their jobs and go to work for NCL, implementing their (no doubt foolproof, perfect) solutions and see what happens. That doesn't mean folks don't have a right to be mad, but as I said, you can't please all of the people all of the time. Personally, I'm happy I get to cruise when I can, and I try not to complain too much, it makes me unhappy when I do that. (and usually makes other people unhappy, too)

Edited August 10, 2022 by DCGuy64
added the word 'mean'

[PATRLR]

1 minute ago, LGW59 said:

Don't believe that I quoted you or anyone else.  

You sure did, look at post 56.  

[LGW59]

5 minutes ago, PATRLR said:

You sure did, look at post 56.  

I stand corrected and apologize.  Still stand by what I said though.  I don't get all huffy about this stuff though as much as many do.  At the end of the day it's all first world stuff...

[BermudaBound2014]

Not saying this to minimize what the OP is experiencing, but Princess just had to cancel 11 sailings out of San Diego due to staff shortages. 

 

Of course, they also picked sailings that were not booking well. So, did they cancel due to staff shortages or did they cancel because they can't turn a profit with 25% occupancy? Only the big guys will ever know.

 

 

[tony s]

2 hours ago, DCGuy64 said:

If I've learned one thing by being a member of Cruise Critic, it's that it proves the old adage: "you can please some people all of the time, you can please all of the people some of the time, but you can't please all of the people all of the time." People can demand that the cruise lines explicitly detail what they'll do for every possible eventuality, but then they'll complain the fine print is too long and won't read it (but still feel righteous indignation when the cruise line points out where they already accounted for that). Somebody right now is mad that NCL didn't write out all of the specifics regarding testing for Bermuda. People will complain that NCL should swap out Coke for Pepsi and vice versa. They'll complain when a cruise is cancelled altogether because they don't have the staff, and will say it should sail at less than capacity, and then complain then they do exactly that. I think all of the people who second guess and complain should quit their jobs and go to work for NCL, implementing their (no doubt foolproof, perfect) solutions and see what happens. That doesn't mean folks don't have a right to be mad, but as I said, you can't please all of the people all of the time. Personally, I'm happy I get to cruise when I can, and I try not to complain too much, it makes me unhappy when I do that. (and usually makes other people unhappy, too)

And you what we call this, democracy in action. The right to say anything you want. No matter how inane at times. Another reason to keep reading...

[DCGuy64]

15 minutes ago, tony s said:

No matter how inane at times

Very true, I say inane things all the time, just ask my wife! 🤣 And part of the right to say what you want means being able to respond to criticisms you think are nonsensical, unreasonable, unworkable, etc.... 😉

Edited August 10, 2022 by DCGuy64

[tetleytea]

6 hours ago, phillygwm said:

So in other words, if they decided to accommodate all passengers at a loss?  Not the most sustainable business model for a company already billions in debt.  They'd be better off cancelling all the Hawaii runs rather than significantly increasing salaries with fares already locked in.  

 

Of course they would.   But let's not kid ourselves:   they are not cancelling the cruise because they can't sail.   They could.   They're cancelling the cruise because they don't want to.

[sanger727]

6 hours ago, vacation44 said:

It was reported a while back when they first started cancel reservations, they were given a refund (on how it was paid) along with a 100% FCC.   If I remember correctly, something towards booked airfare too.

 

3 hours ago, BermudaBound2014 said:

I'm just going to toss this out there, feel free to ignore:

 

I'd be very cautious accepting FCC over cash for this sailing. The quarterly release yesterday was troubling. Insiders are selling. More dilution is inevitable. I believe (and have believed since 2020) that restructuring the cruise lines is an option on the table. I'm not saying all FCC would become worthless, but it's a possibility. Cash in hand from cruise lines is always going to be the safest bet, especially over the next year when we will start to know how it all shakes out.

 

The person posted that they were giving a cash refund plus FCC. That seems more than fair. A bit like airlines when they overbook and offer to pay people to miss the flight. That seems like it would be the best solution, to offer all passengers to voluntarily cancel with a generous bonus. Someone who takes several cruises a year may be happy to take that. Someone who only gets one vacation every year and can't reschedule a new one easily, wouldn't. That's the problem with this situation. Sure, you are getting a refund. But that doesn't mean your work schedule allows you to schedule a new vacation. You may just be missing out for the rest of the year then. 

[phillygwm]

1 minute ago, tetleytea said:

 

Of course they would.   But let's not kid ourselves:   they are not cancelling the cruise because they can't sail.   They could.   They're cancelling the cruise because they don't want to.

More to the point, they can't do it profitably.  Yes, NCL could always get to 100% staffing if money were no object, though as has been pointed out previously, there are certifications to be had which take time; crew can't just hop on a ship and go.  That said, if salaries go up, fares will go up and demand will presumably go down.  How much of a premium are people willing to pay before they decide to do a different itinerary?

[tetleytea]

5 minutes ago, phillygwm said:

More to the point, they can't do it profitably.  Yes, NCL could always get to 100% staffing if money were no object, though as has been pointed out previously, there are certifications to be had which take time; crew can't just hop on a ship and go.  That said, if salaries go up, fares will go up and demand will presumably go down.  How much of a premium are people willing to pay before they decide to do a different itinerary?

 

Thing is, people had already booked the cruise.   The people who already booked the cruise need to be treated fairly.    Lest there be any myth that NCL had no choice--yes, they did.   

 

[mjkacmom]

41 minutes ago, tetleytea said:

 

Of course they would.   But let's not kid ourselves:   they are not cancelling the cruise because they can't sail.   They could.   They're cancelling the cruise because they don't want to.

So should they sail without enough staff?

[tetleytea]

1 minute ago, mjkacmom said:

So should they sail without enough staff?

Like I said before, the reason they can't find staff is because they don't want to pay them more.   We're seeing the same issue all the time with "we can't find enough public school teachers, the armed forces can't meet their recruiting targets....".

 

Yes, they can. 

[scooter6139]

I recall, way back in the day, that cruise ships would sail at a loss at the time of sailing, and would only become profitable after all on ship sales were accounted for (mostly drinks and spa).  I believe this was before the big plans that included all the perks.  Wonder what the margins are like now?

[BermudaBound2014]

13 minutes ago, scooter6139 said:

I recall, way back in the day, that cruise ships would sail at a loss at the time of sailing, and would only become profitable after all on ship sales were accounted for (mostly drinks and spa).  I believe this was before the big plans that included all the perks.  Wonder what the margins are like now?

CCL published that with the new debt ratios (they are paying near 650 million a month in Interest payments alone) that they need 95% occupancy. Before the excessive debt it was 90%.

Edited August 10, 2022 by BermudaBound2014

[tetleytea]

I read back and saw the OP was offered a 100% refund plus the same amount in FCC and airfare.  If that's the case, it sounds to me like NCL made both a reasonable business decision and treated the existing people booked fairly.

[Oceansaway17]

On 8/9/2022 at 12:20 PM, DCGuy64 said:

The issue seems to be a staffing shortage. I, like others, would like to know who got cut, who didn't, and why.

i agree and I also wonder if they send emails looking for volunteers like the air lines do?

Otherwise to me the those who booked more recently should be the ones to get cancelled.