Are NCL selling cruises to ports they have no intention of going to.

[BirdTravels]

5 hours ago, woodley said:

The last two NCL cruises I have been on have cancelled port/countries after final payment with little or no explanation and no return of port fees.  I have been reading other reports of this happening with increasing frequency.  I understand bad weather could sometimes impact the ability to dock but it does seem to be happening more and more also ports and countries were cancelled on both my recent cruises with no reason given at all.  I am beginning to think they are advertising and selling cruises to ports/countries they have no intention of going to. What do others think?

 

Best Advice: Don't believe everything you read on the internet. 

 

Better Advice: If you truly believe "[NCL is] advertising and selling cruises to ports/countries they have no intention of going to.", then don't cruise on NCL and don't ask this question. 

[CILCIANRQTS]

4 minutes ago, BirdTravels said:

Best Advice: Don't believe everything you read on the internet. 

 

Better Advice: If you truly believe "[NCL is] advertising and selling cruises to ports/countries they have no intention of going to.", then don't cruise on NCL and don't ask this question. 

Sort of a “Love it or leave it” approach, don’t try to make it better.  🙄

[ceilidh1]

I realise I'm in the minority, but I couldn't care less about missed ports - I cruise to be on a ship, and sometimes don't even get off in ports. What I don't understand, is the not refunding port charges. I'm sure it's somewhere in fine print that they don't need to, but what happens to all of that money that passengers have paid for the port that the ship doesn't call on? It's not something that keeps me up at night, but I am genuinely curious about it. For those that DO book for particular ports/itineraries, I totally get the frustration and sense of mistrust...

[jdc987]

44 minutes ago, BirdTravels said:

Then cancel. 

Obviously your money is abundant and disposal of hundreds if not thousands is of no consequence!

That is not my position and I gather, many others.

[chillyw]

In order to believe NCL is advertising sailings they intend to miss, you have to believe that the short term gain of filling a few ships further is worth more then all the customer service incidents and mad customers they'll generate, plus the long term damage to the brand if they keep doing it.

 

I think it's much more likely they create schedules they intend to sail a couple years, and they do a poor job proactively adjusting schedules until close in.

[pghflyer]

Since we are all just posting opinions, my take is that NCL genuinely intends to and hopes it can make all ports when they list the itinerary for sale, anything else seems ridiculous to me....BUT after the itinerary is announced (2-4 YEARS in advance) and as things evolve and the "environment" (politics, pandemics, regulations, weather, equipment....this is a dicey business they operate in) changes, they do strategically leverage their legal protections and purposely withhold announcing changes as long as possible and where possible, after cancellation/ payment dates have passed, in order to make sure the ship stays full. 

 

We booked an itinerary visiting Ukraine/ Romania/ Bulgaria, and they waited until 3 months after Russia invaded to remove Ukraine and 60-days out to remove Romania/ Bulgaria. So our "Black Sea" cruise transformed into a "Greek Islands" cruise with no option to cancel or any concession for the change.

 

This isn't nice for customers, but they are in business (one that is impacted by a LOT of factors) solely to make money.  Anyhow, that's my take FWIW (not much).

Edited February 28, 2023 by pghflyer

[Beer Belly]

10 hours ago, BirdTravels said:

Then cancel. 

When they announce the change after final payment, or very close to it, there is a significant lose of monies if one cancels.

[njkate]

11 hours ago, BirdTravels said:

Then cancel. 

Lol problem is NCL makes these changes many times after final payment where consumer would loose a considerable amount of money unless they had a cancel for any reason insurance which many don’t take because it’s costly.

Totally not surprised in the least by your answer, you sometimes come off as the Captain of the cheer squad.

 

We all know weather can be a big factor the issue right now is NCL seems to be doing this a lot lately and not weather related

[Karaboudjan]

12 hours ago, LoungerOnBalcony55 said:

No large cruise ships will be stopping in Bar Harbor this fall, but NCL is still selling Canadian itineraries with it on there. 

 

As is every other cruise line that I checked...

[njkate]

16 hours ago, jdc987 said:

My Alaska 7-day on NCL Spirit had the Inside passage removed after I paid for it.  The issue appears to be that this ship will not pass Canadian emissions and is banished.  I would not have booked this had the correct information been provided.  This was clearly done to sucker in people!  I am very upset!

Thanks for the info, I had been looking at the Spirits last cruise around Alaska before heading to Hawaii. Then I stopped after all these people received 50% off coupons for the Spirit and Jewel, was waiting to see if I get one, nope no luck. 

[styles27]

16 hours ago, kitkat343 said:

Here is the link to the previous discussion of this happening across other cruises:

 

 

There is absolutely no question that for safety reasons all cruise lines need to have the right to cancel ports due to weather, safety or other emergency conditions.  However, on my January 8th Getaway cruise, they cancelled the DR and morning in Antigua for environmental reasons after final payment and continued to advertise and sell that cruise on their website for weeks as visiting the cancelled ports.  People who called to book directly with NCL after the ports were cancelled were not told the ports were cancelled and none of us were allowed to reschedule.  

 

As someone noted above, using other cruise lines is the only solution to this problem (after researching those cruise lines aren't routinely cancelling itineraries unless necessary).  I've sailed Princess, RC, HAL, Cunard, Carnival and NCL and found the mainstream lines more similar than different.  Because NCL seems to be consistently doing this, I am very hesitant to book with them again.   Ironically, this is the only line I have any status with.  

 

However, there were passengers on my cruise who were just happy to be out of the cold in NY, and weren't upset by the lost port.  If enough of those passengers exist, NCL will be able to continue to cancel itineraries for nonemergency reasons after final payment.  I really hope they aren't doing this on cruises in which most people are traveling for itineraries (on a Panama Canal cruise they removed the overnight in Panama and replaced it with a late night visit that didn't give people a chance to see the locks in action, which seems like a huge loss on that cruise, plus took away Costa Rica and Nicaragua and replaced them with Aculpulco and Jamaica for safety reasons).  Alaska also strikes me as a place where people should be booking for itineraries (and the inside passage is really special) so that is really concerning.

That is sneaky business practice. To know they’ve already cancelled the port for a specific sailing but continue to sell that sailing without updating the itinerary tells me they really don’t care. They could easily add an *to that sailing noting DR has been removed. Very simple. 

[styles27]

13 hours ago, LoungerOnBalcony55 said:

No large cruise ships will be stopping in Bar Harbor this fall, but NCL is still selling Canadian itineraries with it on there. 

Not only the Canada New England itineraries include BH but also the Bermuda itineraries go to BH starting late April. 
 

Where did you see this announcement that no large ships are going to BH this year?

[ontheweb]

8 minutes ago, styles27 said:

That is sneaky business practice. To know they’ve already cancelled the port for a specific sailing but continue to sell that sailing without updating the itinerary tells me they really don’t care. They could easily add an *to that sailing noting DR has been removed. Very simple. 

It does seem suspicious if there is a pattern of changing ports right after final payment is due. I think we all can agree that as soon as NCL (or for that matter any cruise line) knows it cannot make it to a port that it is selling as part of a cruise, it should be revealed.

 

In the Covid era, we had a Princess Norwegian fjords cruise with a refundable deposit that I figured out could never happen as hotels in England were closing and Norway was closing ports. Princess finally did cancel, but not until final payment was due when they would have more money to hold and maybe customers with a non-refundable deposit would have had to wait. I was amused when someone joined the roll call saying they had just booked after I cancelled for us knowing that it could not ever sail.

[cruiseny4life]

16 hours ago, jdc987 said:

Thank you, please do not reply to any of my posts in the future and I'll do same for you.

Hover over the profile of offending criticers and click the "Ignore" button. You won't see their posts. They'll still see yours (I believe). I just keep scrolling, rather than ignore as some of the more offensive posters do have a good point....once every couple months or so. 

 

As to the larger point of NCL doing the right thing. Well, they'll do what's legally the right thing. They won't do what's ethically correct...but, then again, what major corporation does? Instead of a crappy $10 burger from McD's, a cruise is a several thousand dollar investment so people are more apt to notice NCL's awful customer service and policies that are in alignment with the law, but not fairness. 

 

Jump ship to another line. I'm trying really hard to get away from NCL, but some of the deals are just really darn good and the onboard experience (for me) is still great. I'm with @ceilidh1. I rarely care if we make it to a port or not...I mean, I care, but it won't disrupt my vacation too much if plans change. Every single cruise I've taken (three in the last year) has had a missed port. My March cruise has a missed port as well, so I'm 0-4 for NCL sticking with the ports offered in their marketing materials. And, I'm ok with that. I just wish they'd be honest about the reasons for the itinerary changes. 

[RocketMan275]

One wonders, if a passenger doesn't leave the ship at a specific port, should NCL refund the port charge for that port?

[styles27]

13 hours ago, BirdTravels said:

Best Advice: Don't believe everything you read on the internet. 

 

Better Advice: If you truly believe "[NCL is] advertising and selling cruises to ports/countries they have no intention of going to.", then don't cruise on NCL and don't ask this question. 

It’s not a matter of “if you truly believe” NCL is doing it?
They are doing it.

Whether or not you want to believe the truth is up to you personally. 
 

Most of us seasoned cruisers know ports can be missed, changed or entirely cancelled…although on 40 cruises I can count on one hand how many times it’s happened to us.

I have zero problem with that. 

 

What’s wrong is when they continue to sell a sailing without placing an asterisk near the port they’ve already cancelled. That is misleading and shows a lack of integrity. 

It’s okay to be loyal to a company but it’s also okay to admit they are being sneaky when it comes to this specific issue. 

[RocketMan275]

9 minutes ago, styles27 said:

IWhat’s wrong is when they continue to sell a sailing without placing an asterisk near the port they’ve already cancelled. That is misleading and shows a lack of integrity. 

It’s okay to be loyal to a company but it’s also okay to admit they are being sneaky when it comes to this specific issue. 

An even bigger issue is charter cruises.  Cruise lines will often list for sale cruises when they have a contingent charter on that cruise.  I've seen this happen on several lines.  Charter company XXX is actively advertising a full ship charter on YYY cruise.  Since the charter is contingent (it may not actually happen) the cruise line continues to sell that same cruise.  

Not picky on NCL, but I have seen NCL do this.  I've also seen Holland and other lines do the same.  If the contingent comes through, the lines might, I say again, might offer you $100 OBC for inconvienience.  

Cruise lines will also allow large, but not full ship, charters to take over or dominate specific sections of the ship.  Often this is booking MDR exclusively for those on the charter at specific times, ie, only those on the charter can dine in the MDR from 1900 to 2100.

I also have read where Holland allowed a large partical charter to reserve the Crows Next (best viewing area) exclusively for the charter while in Glacier Bay.

No cruise line will admit to a specific partial charter on any of their cruise even when the charter will prevent other passengers from experiencing certain aspects of the ship.  They will sell you a cabin while advertising a perk like the Crows Nest while knowing that you cannot use that perk because of the partial charter.  You will only discover this when you show up at the facility only to find a security guard preventing you from entry.

[styles27]

15 hours ago, LoungerOnBalcony55 said:

No large cruise ships will be stopping in Bar Harbor this fall, but NCL is still selling Canadian itineraries with it on there. 

I found the reason but it doesn’t state that large ships won’t go to BH, they’re just limiting them to allowing only 1000 pax to disembark. 
 

I see a major problem, especially if the cruise lines decide to keep BH on their itineraries (which it still is listed on their sites) and only hand out 1000 tender tickets. 
 

This will result in a lot of angry people. Especially if they’re not made aware of this before they cruise. 
 

https://maritime-executive.com/article/bar-harbor-votes-to-dramatically-limit-cruise-passenger-arrivals

[sailorusvi]

52 minutes ago, RocketMan275 said:

One wonders, if a passenger doesn't leave the ship at a specific port, should NCL refund the port charge for that port?

 

Doesn't work that way. They pay a fee on your behalf regardless if you leave the ship or not.

 

The word "port" doesn't mean only if you are at a physical port or stepped off the boat.  The often include arrival/departure fees for just being in the local waters. 

[ontheweb]

1 hour ago, RocketMan275 said:

One wonders, if a passenger doesn't leave the ship at a specific port, should NCL refund the port charge for that port?

Come on, you know the answer to that. The services provided the ship such as the tug boat that helps in docking are not dependent on whether a certain passenger gets off the ship or not.

[RocketMan275]

37 minutes ago, sailorusvi said:

 

Doesn't work that way. They pay a fee on your behalf regardless if you leave the ship or not.

 

The word "port" doesn't mean only if you are at a physical port or stepped off the boat.  The often include arrival/departure fees for just being in the local waters. 

 

6 minutes ago, ontheweb said:

Come on, you know the answer to that. The services provided the ship such as the tug boat that helps in docking are not dependent on whether a certain passenger gets off the ship or not.

Irrelevant. Logic has nothing to do with it.  It's been explained how port fees are calculated and collected multiple times to no avail.   Some still believe they are entitled to a refund.  Now, bearing that in mind and considering how some think here on CC, some will claim that they are deserving of a refund of port fees since they didn't leave the ship.

Edited February 28, 2023 by RocketMan275

[LoungerOnBalcony55]

1 hour ago, styles27 said:

I found the reason but it doesn’t state that large ships won’t go to BH, they’re just limiting them to allowing only 1000 pax to disembark. 
 

I see a major problem, especially if the cruise lines decide to keep BH on their itineraries (which it still is listed on their sites) and only hand out 1000 tender tickets. 
 

This will result in a lot of angry people. Especially if they’re not made aware of this before they cruise. 
 

https://maritime-executive.com/article/bar-harbor-votes-to-dramatically-limit-cruise-passenger-arrivals

Exactly. It's an untenable situation. I really think they'd just scrap the stop if it came down to it. 

[woodley]

On 2/27/2023 at 8:09 PM, RocketMan275 said:

If  you distrust NCL enough to believe this, then you'd best find another cruise line.

Have you researched other lines to see if there is a pattern of missing ports as well?

Already have done. Azamara and celebrity are my next booked cruises.  I wouldn't be fool enough to continue to book cruises with NCL and not get what I have paid for.  I will see how these two line are in due course.

[woodley]

On 2/27/2023 at 8:09 PM, RocketMan275 said:

If  you distrust NCL enough to believe this, then you'd best find another cruise line.

Have you researched other lines to see if there is a pattern of missing ports as well?

Already have done. Azamara and celebrity are my next booked cruises.  I wouldn't be fool enough to continue to book cruises with NCL and not get what I have paid for.  I will see how these two line are in due course.

[mistertomatoe]

My first cruise with NCL in December they switched a port to what I viewed as worse. Second cruise in Jan, they skipped Bermuda due to weather but no refund of port fees. We started the cruise with three sea days. Along with other reasons, I’m trying to get away from NCL. I unfortunately already paid for two upcoming cruises but after those I’m done with NCL. Seven cruises with Royal, Celebrity, and Carnival, no port issues. All cruises have been after the restart.