Who to believe on schedule, NCL or port schedules?

[ontheweb]

46 minutes ago, SeaShark said:

 

Help me understand...are you saying that they try to "keep their ships out at sea longer" in and effort to "decrease fuel spend"? How does that work? I'm no engineer, but I figure a ship in port burns less fuel than a ship at sea.

 

 

The author of this thread would beg to differ: 

 

I'm guessing that they save fuel by sailing at a slower speed. Less time in a port means more time to get to the next port which allows them to sail at a slower pace. I hope this helps.

[SeaShark]

1 hour ago, luv2kroooz said:

Respectfully, I am not here to help you understand. You are free to read the message boards and draw your own conclusions. How you process information is out of my control. Nothing I can do about that. My response was written in a very intentional, deliberate manner and based on my understand of others experiences and personal knowledge. I stand by what I wrote with the intention of helping other members on these message boards. Over and out. Peace.

 

So...you recognize the direct contradiction and you figure that deflection is better than having to say "my bad". 

 

Got it.

 

Personally, I wouldn't want to have to defend that statement either. Especially if it was intentional and deliberate.

[SeaShark]

1 hour ago, ontheweb said:

I'm guessing that they save fuel by sailing at a slower speed. Less time in a port means more time to get to the next port which allows them to sail at a slower pace. I hope this helps.

 

But you aren't factoring in "time in port means saving fuel by not sailing at all". 

 

Again...ships might be different, but my car burns less fuel when parked than it does when I'm driving...no matter how slow I drive.

[ontheweb]

2 hours ago, SeaShark said:

 

But you aren't factoring in "time in port means saving fuel by not sailing at all". 

 

Again...ships might be different, but my car burns less fuel when parked than it does when I'm driving...no matter how slow I drive.

No matter how long the ship is "parked" in the port, no fuel is used. The fuel is used going from point A to point B. If you can do that going slower, you save fuel. So, I am factoring in time in port as that is no fuel burnt no matter how long or short the ship is there.

[complawyer]

personally, i'd place all my bets on the posted ncl schedules

[Laszlo]

1 hour ago, ontheweb said:

No matter how long the ship is "parked" in the port, no fuel is used. The fuel is used going from point A to point B. If you can do that going slower, you save fuel. So, I am factoring in time in port as that is no fuel burnt no matter how long or short the ship is there.

No fuel is used in port? They just don't plug in to the power grid. 

[luv2kroooz]

1 hour ago, ontheweb said:

No matter how long the ship is "parked" in the port, no fuel is used. The fuel is used going from point A to point B. If you can do that going slower, you save fuel. So, I am factoring in time in port as that is no fuel burnt no matter how long or short the ship is there.

Thanks for the assist, there. Both times.

[njhorseman]

50 minutes ago, Laszlo said:

No fuel is used in port? They just don't plug in to the power grid. 

Yep...lots of fuel used in port to generate electricity for all the usual onboard operations...heating and air conditioning, lighting, elevators restaurant galley operations, computer systems etc. 

 

There are some ports where ships can plug into the local power grid, but by no means all, and by no means are all ships capable of plugging in even if shore power is available. According to CLIA less than 2% of the world's cruise ports have onshore power at present and that is expected rise to 3% by 2025. Only about 30% of CLIA member vessels have plug in capability now, with 30% planned for retrofitting and new vessels being built for CLIA member companies are expected to have plug in capability.

 

[ontheweb]

1 hour ago, Laszlo said:

No fuel is used in port? They just don't plug in to the power grid. 

The point remains they have to get from point A to point B, and going slower saves fuel.

[Cruising Jedi]

7 hours ago, ontheweb said:

I'm guessing that they save fuel by sailing at a slower speed. Less time in a port means more time to get to the next port which allows them to sail at a slower pace. I hope this helps.

 

Also, less time in port means more time on the ship - which means more spending on the ship.  

[ontheweb]

2 hours ago, Cruising Jedi said:

 

Also, less time in port means more time on the ship - which means more spending on the ship.  

Good point. Less people drinking on the ship when they are in port, and of course the casinos and shops are closed then.

[BirdTravels]

13 hours ago, luv2kroooz said:

Respectfully, I am not here to help you understand. You are free to read the message boards and draw your own conclusions. How you process information is out of my control. Nothing I can do about that. My response was written in a very intentional, deliberate manner and based on my understand of others experiences and personal knowledge. I stand by what I wrote with the intention of helping other members on these message boards. Over and out. Peace.

 

I am sure that people who come to this board will all be happy with your "advice" when they are stuck with independent tours in ports based on something they read on the internet versus what is on the official ship's itinerary. 

Edited April 7, 2023 by BirdTravels

[DorothyB]

For my cruise on the Jewel next week, my reservation shows PV on Wed and Maz on Thurs but the map shows us doing Maz before PV.

 

cruisedig.com shows PV on Wed and Maz on Thurs

cruisemapper.com shows Maz on Wed and PV on Thurs

cruisetimetables.com shows Maz on Wed and PV on Thurs.

crew-center.com shows PV on Wed and Maz on Thurs.

mazatlanlife.com shows Jewel in Maz on Thurs.

puertodevallarta.com shows Jewel in PV on Wed.

[luv2kroooz]

9 minutes ago, BirdTravels said:

 

I am sure that people who come to this board will all be happy with your "advice" when they are stuck with independent tours in ports based on something they read on the internet versus what is on the official ship's itinerary. 

Predictable response. Good luck to you.

[CruiseMH]

The problem in such cases is that you never know at which time NCL informs the port about their plans.

If NCL decides to change the itinerary but hasn`t officially cancelled their call (due to whatever reasons) then the port authority still shows the vessel X is berthing at day X although NCL already knows that they will not berth on that day.

So the itinerary shown on the NCL website might be more accurate then the schedules of the official port websites.

 

 

[UKstages]

 

5 minutes ago, CruiseMH said:

The problem in such cases is that you never know at which time NCL informs the port about their plans... So the itinerary shown on the NCL website might be more accurate then the schedules of the official port websites.

 

oh, gosh, i think it's exactly the other way 'round.

 

i think it's far more likely NCL has made its plan known to the various port authorities well in advance so they can secure a berth, but intentionally declined to notify customers and potential customers simply because they don't want to curtail sales or initiate cancellations on the affected itineraries. 

[CruiseMH]

11 hours ago, UKstages said:

 

 

oh, gosh, i think it's exactly the other way 'round.

 

i think it's far more likely NCL has made its plan known to the various port authorities well in advance so they can secure a berth, but intentionally declined to notify customers and potential customers simply because they don't want to curtail sales or initiate cancellations on the affected itineraries. 

I don`t know how NCL does it but i know from other cruise lines that it was the way i described it.

The port did know about the changes much later than the shipping line actually decided it.

YOu are right,the most important thing is to secure a berth at the planned port.

But you can secure a berth at a port without cancelling the other port.

SO the cruise line still has both options.

If you then look at the website of port authority A you will find the vessel X still listed there for a specific day although the cruise line tells you something different.

I just want to point out that this CAN be the case and sometimes also IS the case.

If i have to decide between trusting the port authorities or trusting the shipping line i would make it 75% port and 25 % shipping line.

[insidecabin]

We were on a X booking with a port that could be cancelled they had another berth at another port secured as back up.

 

Which was handy to know as plans could be made for both options before final decision was made.
As it happened not long after booking someone bombed Istanbul airport and the itinery changed to back up plan Piraeus.

[UKstages]

3 hours ago, CruiseMH said:

I just want to point out that this CAN be the case and sometimes also IS the case.

 

understood.

 

and i agree!

 

3 hours ago, CruiseMH said:

If i have to decide between trusting the port authorities or trusting the shipping line i would make it 75% port and 25 % shipping line.

 

i wish i had your faith. but then i look at photos of lobsters in NCL brochures and websites illustrating "free at sea" specialty dining and i have to acknowledge that these weasels often bend the truth. they are quite capable of deceiving their customers when it suits their interest. outside of the haven, there is no such thing on an NCL ship as "free" lobster in a specialty dining restaurant.

 

3 hours ago, CruiseMH said:

But you can secure a berth at a port without cancelling the other port.

SO the cruise line still has both options.

 

they are certainly able to create the impression that they still have both options, which, i suppose is their legal loophole. my belief is that they have already made their decision. we don't know why they may not have canceled a port reservation. 

 

as for holding one port reservation and not canceling it till the last minute, that's kind of unethical. it deprives other ships in need of a berth and deprives the port of revenue. i'm surprised ports would allow this without a hefty close-in cancellation fee (much like NCL itself charges its customers).

[CruiseMH]

On 4/8/2023 at 4:17 PM, UKstages said:

 

 

 

as for holding one port reservation and not canceling it till the last minute, that's kind of unethical. it deprives other ships in need of a berth and deprives the port of revenue. i'm surprised ports would allow this without a hefty close-in cancellation fee (much like NCL itself charges its customers).

there is for sure such a fee if you cancel a berth too short in advance at the ports.

And i am sure that NCL (and other cruise lines) do cancel the berths well in advance to avoid such fees.

But that doesn`t necessarily mean that they inform their customers well in advance. 😉

 

[UKstages]

3 hours ago, CruiseMH said:

But that doesn`t necessarily mean that they inform their customers well in advance. 😉

 

indeed.

 

that has been my point all along!