Need some advice

[Portia!]

I had an experience last year that perhaps explains why/how it happened.

I was Sapphire on a back to back cruise. I changed cabins the second week. A friend of mine booked my old cabin for just the second week. So, on the first day of the second cruise, she received all of my Sapphire benefits (water, vouchers, strawberries) and I received none. She thought it was a big welcome for a brand new NCL cruiser. I explained to her what probably happened. I went to the Latitudes desk to report that I hadn't received anything and was given the vouchers. The next day I received water, never got the strawberries.

My friend wondered if we could use 'her' vouchers as well as mine - I warned her that she could end up paying for the dinners and she agreed to turn the vouchers in to Guest Services. They thanked her for her honesty.

That was early days after restart when back-to-back cruisers were placed on the VIP list, which meant a free bottle of wine in the cabin and snacks throughout the week. So, throughout the week my friend received 'my' VIP perks and I did not. And on the last night when we used one my vouchers for dinner, they bill came in her name/cabin number for signature. So, NCL never got it sorted.

Since then, I have noticed that more often than not, and on three different ships, when I am on a back-to-back, especially if I switch cabins, I do not receive my Latitudes perks the first day of the second week but have to go to the Latitudes desk. So, when I switch cabins, I assume someone else is getting my perks. When I don't switch cabins, it seems that I am simply not on the Latitudes list.

There is something messed up about how they handle back-to-back and Latitudes - like they don't cross reference the lists. I've talked to several Latitudes managers. They always treat me like it's the first time they've heard of such a thing, or they blame the staff. In reality, it's a process issue or a documentation issue or maybe a training issue. At least I know what to do now and I will continue to report and document when it happens.

[RocketMan275]

1 hour ago, Rrooki18 said:

I guess you don’t feel as though some

of us actually care about

the principle. That’s a dark attitude towards society 

Because principles are important to me,

-I would have insisted on paying for the meal consummed the previous night since I wasn't entitled to that meal.

-For the same reason, I would have insisted on paying for the meal to be consummed the second night. 

-Then, after paying, I would have dined elsewhere.

 

[UKstages]

2 hours ago, zqvol said:

I would love to hear the managers side of the story. 

 

what story? there is no story! NCL made a mistake and failed to retrieve a sapphire amenity package after a room switch. then a restaurant manager was less than sensitive in communicating the error when the guest who received the amenity package (including dinner coupons) attempted to redeem the second dinner. that's the story!

 

your comment implies that there is something nefarious going on with regard to the OP, that they are somehow embarking on a crime spree that starts with fraudulently redeeming a couple of coupons for a couple of hundred bucks (even less, if the second dinner was to have been at teppanyaki). it seems far more likely that a third time NCL cruiser was impressed with the way NCL had stepped up its game, didn't see the "sapphire" or latitudes branding on the card, or didn't even know what it meant and simply tried to redeem what they thought they were given as a return guest.

 

the confusing part about this, as mentioned upthread, is the first night's dinner. this could have and should have been handled then. it should have come up in the computer before they were seated that the latitudes status didn't match the dining patron(s). or if they were busy and didn't check, it would have come up by the time they were eating apps and certainly by the end of the meal. the proper thing to have done would have been for the host/ess or manager of that restaurant to discretely engage the OP, explain what happened and invite them to enjoy that night's meal "on the house," while further explaining that the other coupons and benefits could not be redeemed.

 

instead, what the staff probably did (just a guess on my part) was simply consume one of their "free at sea" meals. so the extra meal may not have been extra at all and they might be down one of their FAS credits. again, just a hunch. i'm not saying that's what happened, but this is not my first NCL rodeo.

 

why didn't the staff at the first restaurant explain the problem? i'm going to go out on a limb and say that the key players were filipino. they are wonderful customer service oriented people, but - culturally - they shy away from any encounter that might lead to conflict or confrontation. it would be easier for them to just comp the meal and not say anything or charge an FAS credit behind the scenes, again, without saying anything.

 

as for the "attitude" of the manager at the second restaurant... i think, as others have suggested, that this was indeed a cultural thing. it sounds like that manager sucks at handling conflict and problem resolution. with regard to "what did he do or say" that was so upsetting... that's not the point. it's not what he said, it's what he did. and i don't mean denying the free dinner. 

 

the OP and companion were singled out ("pulled out of line") for special attention in front of other waiting guests (none of whom know any of the backstory) and had a long walk of shame in front of those people as they left the restaurant. think of how it was when you were in school and the teacher demanded you come see her and stay after class. the other kids didn't know what happened, but they knew it must've been pretty bad ("you're in trouble!") if you were singled out like that.

 

that's kind of what happened here. the OP was needlessly embarrassed because NCL made several mistakes. 

[hallux]

3 hours ago, Rrooki18 said:

Wow you are missing the point as well. And I really don’t appreciate your comment as I don’t sulk away with

my tail between my legs… ever.

You missed my point.  You're considering judging the entire company based on one 5 minute interaction with one employee when they were denying you something you weren't even entitled to in the first place.  That 5 minute interaction is during a cruise where you'll spend hours interacting with other crew members and employees that probably treated you with immense kindness and joy.

 

The "sulking away with your tail between your legs" refers to your not-yet-made decision to walk away from NCL based on that experience (if you decide to do that, that would be my opinion of what you're doing).

 

Yes, it's unfortunate that the interaction happened at all (and as others pointed out, someone else DIDN'T get what they deserved because it was delivered to the wrong room), but as others also pointed out the crew member may not have intended to speak to you as they did but were speaking in their normal tone and inflection based on their culture.  I often deal with people from other cultures for my job and I do sometimes find their tone and inflection to be one that would be condescending if coming from someone that spoke English natively.