NCL changing itineraries for non-emergency reasons after final payment

[QuestionEverything]

1 hour ago, Liljo22 said:

Confused why you posted it to the Celebrity forums.  Did they cancel ports also? 

Yes, all the cruise lines are adjusting time in ports, cancelling ports etc under the heading "weather" "environmental considerations".

Oceania took 1 hr off each port for the 2024 and 2025 itineraries using the "environmental" crap.

I post on many forums as there are systemic changes the cruise lines are making which are detrimental to the cruiser.

 

[mking8288]

Surprise, surprise ... aside from staterooms not being ready until mid/late afternoon ... to find Day 2's Freestyle Dailies along several other items, one of them "announcing" itinerary changes, none of which being remotely weather related last January.   

 

Fortunately ... unfortunate for some, we're still docked at the cruise pier (Pier 88, MCT in NY) with solid cellular signals and I know of others quickly calling up their independent shore excursion contacts and tour contacts to cancel, make changes and come up with new arrangements.   There're "valid" excuses to switch between Puerto Platta and Amber Cove then b/c of shallow harbor channel.  The switch from St. Lucia to Dominica, as we learned later on & understood, was that NCL captain didn't like or want to tender the full ship sailing with 4,000 pax using lifeboats - time consuming & labor intensive, etc. and Dominica was easy to dock ... couldn't confirm that as factual or not, but the taxi drivers/local guides working the dock area apparently all knew & expected our ship to arrive that morning (they're prepared and not surprised) 

 

Or, stick with grossly over-priced NCL official shorex options.   For peace of mind, just let go of that tight grip on the (digital) wallet and credit card.  

 

[kitkat343]

1 hour ago, mking8288 said:

Surprise, surprise ... aside from staterooms not being ready until mid/late afternoon ... to find Day 2's Freestyle Dailies along several other items, one of them "announcing" itinerary changes, none of which being remotely weather related last January.   

 

Fortunately ... unfortunate for some, we're still docked at the cruise pier (Pier 88, MCT in NY) with solid cellular signals and I know of others quickly calling up their independent shore excursion contacts and tour contacts to cancel, make changes and come up with new arrangements.   There're "valid" excuses to switch between Puerto Platta and Amber Cove then b/c of shallow harbor channel.  The switch from St. Lucia to Dominica, as we learned later on & understood, was that NCL captain didn't like or want to tender the full ship sailing with 4,000 pax using lifeboats - time consuming & labor intensive, etc. and Dominica was easy to dock ... couldn't confirm that as factual or not, but the taxi drivers/local guides working the dock area apparently all knew & expected our ship to arrive that morning (they're prepared and not surprised) 

 

Or, stick with grossly over-priced NCL official shorex options.   For peace of mind, just let go of that tight grip on the (digital) wallet and credit card.  

 

I'm sorry about the stress over the last minute changes since this would have been easy to organize if you'd had some notice.   Dominica is really nice.  Titou gourge is an amazing waterfall you swim into  and a really unique experience (it's a little cold though so parents should note that it might be a bit too cold for kids!). Trafalgar Falls is also quite lovely, as are the hot springs.  We actually much preferred this to St. Lucia, as the waterfalls and volcano in St. Lucia are spectacular but are an hour away from the port across very windy, hilly roads.  We were there on a day that there were two ships (both NCL) and it was overwhelming for the local tour industry.    St Lucia's mud baths were really crowded, so we were able to enjoy the hot springs in Dominica more even though there were multiple ships in port there but their springs were more spread out (at least at the place I went to there was a hot hot spring, a medium heat hot spring and a colder hot spring, which was nice because my kids could go in some of them).  I hope you are able to find a nice tour to take you to the highlights of the island because it's really beautiful.

[Panhandle Couple]

5 minutes ago, kitkat343 said:

I'm sorry about the stress over the last minute changes since this would have been easy to organize if you'd had some notice.   Dominica is really nice.  Titou gourge is an amazing waterfall you swim into  and a really unique experience (it's a little cold though so parents should note that it might be a bit too cold for kids!). Trafalgar Falls is also quite lovely, as are the hot springs.  We actually much preferred this to St. Lucia, as the waterfalls and volcano in St. Lucia are spectacular but are an hour away from the port across very windy, hilly roads.  We were there on a day that there were two ships (both NCL) and it was overwhelming for the local tour industry.    St Lucia's mud baths were really crowded, so we were able to enjoy the hot springs in Dominica more even though there were multiple ships in port there but their springs were more spread out (at least at the place I went to there was a hot hot spring, a medium heat hot spring and a colder hot spring, which was nice because my kids could go in some of them).  I hope you are able to find a nice tour to take you to the highlights of the island because it's really beautiful.

The daily posted is from 2023.  Click on it and click again to magnify.  

[ontheweb]

18 hours ago, complawyer said:

sherilly. if you're both from jamaica, what's the difference in ports. while there may be nothing to do in falmouth, other than the falls, there's not a whole heckova lot to do in ocho rios . been there a couple of times, we honeymooned in montego pay over 50 years ago.  if youre so disappointed in the switch, stay on board and enjoy what the ship has to offer. and you should be grateful ncl is taking you somewhere, you could have ended up with an unwanted sea day, although to me that's not half bad.

On a different cruise line, we had a fabulous excursion in Ochos Rios, A Bob Marley bus tour.

[westie877]

Norwegian Cruise Line advertised the 4/10/24 NCL Sky itinerary with 9 ports of call and then changed the schedule the ONE day after the penalty phase began, deleting 2 ports we were very interested to see, Grenada and Bonaire, not just shortening the time in ports. They substituted a day at sea and minimally developed Catalina Island DR. We were notified that the stated reason for the change in schedule was to improve fuel efficiency. Norwegian cruise line knew the distance between the islands and ports when the cruise was advertised. NCL advertised an attractive cruise itinerary and then deleted two ports. NCL has defended this policy when we filed a claim with them and BBB and feels that it is perfectly acceptable to change ports for fuel efficiency, even telling us it would be unethical to give us our money back because they don't give others' back. The contract lists a number of possible reasons for changing schedules including war, weather, strike, etc. Changes due to such reasons are understandable. Even though NCL’s policy is to make changes to itineraries for fuel efficiency/cost savings, they do not include that reason in their list of causes in their contract. Writing a contract in such a manner is deceptive when a frequent reason for taking an action is omitted. They refused to refund our $266 when we cancelled though, like noted throughout this thread, NCL just happens to  change the itinerary the FIRST day the penalty phase began. So frustrating!

[Cruise Guy50]

Would like to encourage people impacted by NCL changing itineraries for reasons such as fuel efficiency after final payment has been made to report this to the FTC. NCL knows the distance between stops during the planning phase. For the company to advertise an itinerary and change it after final payment was made for known causes and withhold deposit refund is in my opinion fraudulent. Also, for the company to list an example of bonafide reasons in their contracts but exclude a frequent reason such as saving fuel costs is fraudulent inducement. Both of these reasons should justify investigation by the FTC if enough people complain.    

[G-DawgMN]

1 hour ago, Cruise Guy50 said:

Would like to encourage people impacted by NCL changing itineraries for reasons such as fuel efficiency after final payment has been made to report this to the FTC. NCL knows the distance between stops during the planning phase. For the company to advertise an itinerary and change it after final payment was made for known causes and withhold deposit refund is in my opinion fraudulent. Also, for the company to list an example of bonafide reasons in their contracts but exclude a frequent reason such as saving fuel costs is fraudulent inducement. Both of these reasons should justify investigation by the FTC if enough people complain.    

 

 You probably should read your cruise contract. They can cancel and change ports for any reason:

 

 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, except as may be required by law

 

 

https://www.ncl.com/sites/default/files/NCL_Guest_Ticket Contract_US_EN_02_2023.pdf

Edited March 6 by KSSS2013

[G-DawgMN]

20 hours ago, westie877 said:

Norwegian Cruise Line advertised the 4/10/24 NCL Sky itinerary with 9 ports of call and then changed the schedule the ONE day after the penalty phase began, deleting 2 ports we were very interested to see, Grenada and Bonaire, not just shortening the time in ports. They substituted a day at sea and minimally developed Catalina Island DR. We were notified that the stated reason for the change in schedule was to improve fuel efficiency. Norwegian cruise line knew the distance between the islands and ports when the cruise was advertised. NCL advertised an attractive cruise itinerary and then deleted two ports. NCL has defended this policy when we filed a claim with them and BBB and feels that it is perfectly acceptable to change ports for fuel efficiency, even telling us it would be unethical to give us our money back because they don't give others' back. The contract lists a number of possible reasons for changing schedules including war, weather, strike, etc. Changes due to such reasons are understandable. Even though NCL’s policy is to make changes to itineraries for fuel efficiency/cost savings, they do not include that reason in their list of causes in their contract. Writing a contract in such a manner is deceptive when a frequent reason for taking an action is omitted. They refused to refund our $266 when we cancelled though, like noted throughout this thread, NCL just happens to  change the itinerary the FIRST day the penalty phase began. So frustrating!

 

 

 You probably should read your cruise contract. They can cancel and change ports for any reason:

 

 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, except as may be required by law

 

 

https://www.ncl.com/sites/default/files/NCL_Guest_Ticket Contract_US_EN_02_2023.pdf

Edited just now by KSSS2013

[ontheweb]

2 hours ago, KSSS2013 said:

 

 

 You probably should read your cruise contract. They can cancel and change ports for any reason:

 

 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, except as may be required by law

 

 

https://www.ncl.com/sites/default/files/NCL_Guest_Ticket Contract_US_EN_02_2023.pdf

Edited just now by KSSS2013

The fact that they can do it according to the contract that their lawyers have written, does not make it right. Is it a coincidence that they seem to do it a day after final payment is due rather than before final payment?

[G-DawgMN]

3 minutes ago, ontheweb said:

The fact that they can do it according to the contract that their lawyers have written, does not make it right. Is it a coincidence that they seem to do it a day after final payment is due rather than before final payment?

 

 I never said it was right, I was just pointing out that people don't have a leg to stand on when they threaten to sue or complain to the FTC, AG, etc.

 The only recourse is to vote with your wallet and use other cruise lines that hopefully won't do the same thing.

 

[ontheweb]

21 minutes ago, KSSS2013 said:

 

 I never said it was right, I was just pointing out that people don't have a leg to stand on when they threaten to sue or complain to the FTC, AG, etc.

 The only recourse is to vote with your wallet and use other cruise lines that hopefully won't do the same thing.

 

This is what happened with me. We had a port cancelled due to an extremely low tide. OK, that is not no reason at all. We had an excursion booked with NCL for that port. I called to get the excursion payment returned to my credit card. I was told that I would be getting non-refundable OBC for the amount, and I should be grateful that I was getting anything.

 

I continued the discussion with the rep pointing out I was not asking for compensation for the missed port, but a return of our money paid for an excursion that they were no longer providing. She finally realized that, and said she had to check with another department and would get back to me. She returned and said it would be treated as I cancelled the excursion and since it was well over the 48 hours that they require for getting a refund the money would be refunded.

 

A happy ending except for missing the port, but note the original reaction was you will get NON-REFUNDABLE OBC for something I had already paid for and was no longer able to be provided by them.

[MoCruiseFan]

On 3/5/2024 at 12:55 PM, westie877 said:

Norwegian Cruise Line advertised the 4/10/24 NCL Sky itinerary with 9 ports of call and then changed the schedule the ONE day after the penalty phase began, deleting 2 ports we were very interested to see, Grenada and Bonaire, not just shortening the time in ports. They substituted a day at sea and minimally developed Catalina Island DR. We were notified that the stated reason for the change in schedule was to improve fuel efficiency. Norwegian cruise line knew the distance between the islands and ports when the cruise was advertised. NCL advertised an attractive cruise itinerary and then deleted two ports. NCL has defended this policy when we filed a claim with them and BBB and feels that it is perfectly acceptable to change ports for fuel efficiency, even telling us it would be unethical to give us our money back because they don't give others' back. The contract lists a number of possible reasons for changing schedules including war, weather, strike, etc. Changes due to such reasons are understandable. Even though NCL’s policy is to make changes to itineraries for fuel efficiency/cost savings, they do not include that reason in their list of causes in their contract. Writing a contract in such a manner is deceptive when a frequent reason for taking an action is omitted. They refused to refund our $266 when we cancelled though, like noted throughout this thread, NCL just happens to  change the itinerary the FIRST day the penalty phase began. So frustrating!

And you agreed to this being a posibility whne you booked.  It happens on occasion on all cruise lines.  Yeah it sucks when it happens to you and the ports dropped are ones you are really looking forwrad to, but it is all part of cruising as we all know.  Make the best of it and stop choosing to let it ruin yoru cruise.

[QuestionEverything]

Well done folks who are posting about the large number of port and time in port reduction by NCL and Oceania - does seem to be NCL focused.

Oh and lets add in the new NCL company Oceania and Regent ships with numerous noise complaints........gets more interesting indeed.

It is interesting that there is Air Passenger Protection Regulations in many countries but 0 for cruising. 

The cruise contract means 0 to me because it is one sided, I use the Air Passenger Protection Regulations as my basis for consumer rights. 

And never forget the greatness of the media to get action for consumers.

I am watching these files with interest indeed.

[QuestionEverything]

2 minutes ago, NotDutchNotMuch said:

 

You win lawsuits against cruise? Number of? If zero what point?

 

I did not say that, you are reading in much, why?

[Cruise Guy50]

My point is that the guest ticket lists several perfectly reasonable and understandable reasons for deleting ports but omits a reason (to save fuel costs) which occurs frequently. In my opinion, such omissions can constitute a fraudulent/invalid contract (fraudulent inducement). We have another document from NCL that is even more specific regarding the reasons ports are cancelled (will provide later in a separate post). Enjoyed reading how the FTC went after NCL (and other lines) for advertising issues: 

Cruise line faces fine from FTC over illegal robocall operation

Cruise line faces fine from FTC over illegal robocall operation (consumeraffairs.com)

Edited March 7 by Cruise Guy50

[Cruise Guy50]

Also loved the verbiage NCL used in response to another customer

"It is always our intention to maintain original itineraries.... unfore

seen circumstances require us to make modifications...."

Tell me another funny one!

 

[Cruise Guy50]

There is another thread regarding this same topic:

 

[dexddd]

15 hours ago, NotDutchNotMuch said:

 

You are funny Cruise Guy50.

 

 

Both of you are new here so maybe go have a newbie thread.

[QuestionEverything]

1 hour ago, Cruise Guy50 said:

There is another thread regarding this same topic:

 

Thanks so much for your information! 

Confirms the suspicions of many on these boards.

NCL appears to be the main culprit in this enterprise, particularly Oceania.

Keep posting and Rocking!

[alwalaska]

On 1/19/2024 at 3:43 PM, QuestionEverything said:

Yes, all the cruise lines are adjusting time in ports, cancelling ports etc under the heading "weather" "environmental considerations".

Oceania took 1 hr off each port for the 2024 and 2025 itineraries using the "environmental" crap.

I post on many forums as there are systemic changes the cruise lines are making which are detrimental to the cruiser.

 

I'd love to be able to see how much this is happening on all of the cruise lines, but I can't think of a way to find the data.  Does Celebrity and Oceania tend to make the changes before or after the final payment?  

[LongIsland-Cruiser]

57 minutes ago, alwalaska said:

I'd love to be able to see how much this is happening on all of the cruise lines, but I can't think of a way to find the data.  Does Celebrity and Oceania tend to make the changes before or after the final payment?  

I bet if you looked at their boards you would see similar threads 

[alwalaska]

6 minutes ago, LongIsland-Cruiser said:

I bet if you looked at their boards you would see similar threads 

Yes, but I'm a data analyst and would love to see actual statistics, not how much or how little people complain about it. 

[LongIsland-Cruiser]

5 minutes ago, alwalaska said:

Yes, but I'm a data analyst and would love to see actual statistics, not how much or how little people complain about it. 

 Hmmm.  That’s understandable.   I just don’t know where you would get that 

[UKstages]

21 hours ago, Cruise Guy50 said:

My point is that the guest ticket lists several perfectly reasonable and understandable reasons for deleting ports but omits a reason (to save fuel costs) which occurs frequently. In my opinion, such omissions can constitute a fraudulent/invalid contract (fraudulent inducement).

 

have you considered that if the cancellation occurs because of a reason NOT mentioned in that guest ticket cruise contract that it actually strengthens your "case" against them? (assuming of course, that there is any case here at all.)

 

i applaud the initiative, even as i don't think this would go anywhere.

 

if i were you, though, i would try to find a florida-based law firm that might entertain a class action suit. or take the FTC route. if there really is a calculated plan and pattern to deceive customers by canceling for non-covered reasons after final payment has been made, and if that can be proven, there may well be a case here.