NCL Star passenger revolt

[txjim09]

NCL was suppose to be in Port Stanley with us (Sapphire Princess) on Feb 1 but was a no-show.  Our tour guide was informed the prior evening and the rumor was that Captain requested a 5:30AM arrival, was told it was not possible and replied by telling port authorities that he would skip the port because of this.  

[SeaShark]

1 hour ago, UKstages said:

 

generally held principles of customer service would argue that they may not be entitled to compensation, but they are entitled to an explanation. and generally held principles of customer service would argue that they should receive both.

 

So the only definate here is that "they are entitled to an explanation", and an explanation was given. So what is the problem?

[UKstages]

really now?

 

what was the explanation?

 

that this was done to "enhance the guest experience?"

 

that's not an explanation. that's a dodge. it says absolutely nothing.

 

is NCL running a company... or running for congress?

[Two Wheels Only]

If NCL announced that a pregnant Blue Whale (endangered) was spotted and that all ships must avoid the intended area, I doubt that the angry people on the ship would feel any differently. 

 

Even if NCL gave a 100% FCC, there's no guarantee that the future cruise will go to every intended destination.

 

It's mainly sheer curiosity as to why the change was made. How NCL communicates (or doesn't) is a separate issue. How NCL deals with the angry mob and bad publicly is also a separate issue.

 

.... popcorn time...

[FLAHAM]

I believe that those reading about the issue on Cruise Critic are also entitled to an FCC.

[UKstages]

26 minutes ago, Two Wheels Only said:

It's mainly sheer curiosity as to why the change was made.

 

i honestly don't think so.

 

from the answer, those onboard - and the sailing public at large - can judge the legitimacy of the reason and NCL in general. many people would not like or empathize with your endangered pregnant whale scenario above (and some would question how NCL knew the whale was pregnant), but that would be a legitimate reason... more or less.

 

saying that it's being done to enhance the guest experience is not a legitimate reason... because it's not really a reason at all. i'm not really in the guest enhancement business... i'm just a humble country bumpkin... but from the protests, it would seem that not many guests' experiences have been enhanced.

 

Edited February 13 by UKstages

[david_sobe]

To enhance our guest experience and for your convenience, the march of the penguins is hereby cancelled.

 

 

 

************************ total chaos erupts*************************

(Airplane movie scene when the flight attendant announces they are out of coffee)

[laudergayle]

To enhance the guest experience, the ship’s current itinerary was revised to allow more time for guests to explore Stanley, Falkland Islands. As such, the cruise by Paradise Bay, Antarctica was replaced with a cruise by Admiralty Bay,” on Antarctica’s South Shetland Island chain.
 

This is a Statement. And a Circular Statement at that.  

[cruiser2015]

6 hours ago, BirdTravels said:

Unfortunately, every passenger in every cruise signs a contract which allows such change without compensation. Your lawyer would tell you such. 

Completely true.

However, if only the truth about what happened were known.

If NCL was pulling something shady; that they knew these changes were going to happen and kept it hidden until they last moment; then we have the makings of a fraud.

That contract assumes that the parties act in good faith. Unavoidable port changes (such as weather issues) are covered. But not fraud.

Now, if there were some agitated attorneys on the cruise, NCL could have a problem. 

[Two Wheels Only]

28 minutes ago, david_sobe said:

************************ total chaos erupts*************************

(Airplane movie scene when the flight attendant announces they are out of coffee)

 

Reminds me of another 'Airplane!' classic....🤣

 

 

 

 

[julig22]

56 minutes ago, Two Wheels Only said:

If NCL announced that a pregnant Blue Whale (endangered) was spotted and that all ships must avoid the intended area, I doubt that the angry people on the ship would feel any differently. 

LOL. I just returned from a trip to Baja to visit the Grey whales, 3 trips to the lagoons. Days 1 & 2 were great, weather was terrible on day 3 and the harbor master closed down the port. Our tour leader was pleading with the tour operator until he pointed out that it was dark which meant that the possibility of hitting a whale would be high, since they wouldn't be seen.

In our case, once we got the details, the explanation made sense, but I agree with your assessment about the angry people on the ship.

[UKstages]

20 minutes ago, laudergayle said:

To enhance the guest experience, the ship’s current itinerary was revised to allow more time for guests to explore Stanley, Falkland Islands. As such, the cruise by Paradise Bay, Antarctica was replaced with a cruise by Admiralty Bay,” on Antarctica’s South Shetland Island chain.

 

my goodness. 

 

i guess the people onboard must have been clamoring for more time to explore stanley. and so NCL responded by adjusting the itinerary to accommodate them, you know, as they so often do when passengers request itinerary changes.

 

this is a strawman explanation... simply because it's doubtful anybody onboard was lobbying for more time to explore stanley (except, perhaps, stella). 

[julig22]

2 minutes ago, UKstages said:

 

my goodness. 

 

i guess the people onboard must have been clamoring for more time to explore stanley. and so NCL responded by adjusting the itinerary to accommodate them, you know, as they so often do when passengers request itinerary changes.

 

this is a strawman explanation... simply because it's doubtful anybody onboard was lobbying for more time to explore stanley (except, perhaps, stella). 

Assuming they even get to Stanley - that's generally a 50/50 chance.

[Corriegr]

This now an absolute PR disaster for NCL with Good Morning America now posting on the Star FB page trying to catch up with passengers . 

[ontheweb]

1 hour ago, FLAHAM said:

I believe that those reading about the issue on Cruise Critic are also entitled to an FCC.

Only an FCC? Why not a free cruise?

[ontheweb]

2 minutes ago, Corriegr said:

This now an absolute PR disaster for NCL with Good Morning America now posting on the Star FB page trying to catch up with passengers . 

You wonder whether at some point the bean counters will figure out that giving a reasonable explanation (if there is one) will in the long run save a lot of bad publicity and possibly a loss of future revenue for the cruise line.

[LloydJr]

Suddenly, missing GSC doesn't sound like such a big deal.

[david_sobe]

Is NCL telling us absolutely everything? Not exactly. They're also out of cookies.

 

Edited February 13 by david_sobe

[UKstages]

geez, i dunno. i haven't seen an explanation. i've seen a rationalization. 

 

we wanted to give you more time to explore stanley.

 

that's not an explanation. it's an after the fact rationalization of why they chose to do it, if you choose to believe them when they say it. it doesn't tell guests what happened. it tells guests how NCL chose to solve the problem and characterize the solution after the fact, whatever the problem may or may not have been. we still don't know what the problem was. the problem wasn't that more people wanted to see stanley!

 

why would they give more time to explore stanley? and if it was so important, and enhances the guest experience so much, why isn't it done on every itinerary?

 

this is looking and smelling more and more like ísafjörður with every passing moment.

[zqvol]

For what it’s worth they have also made the change to at least the next two cruises sailing that route. 

[purpleally]

9 hours ago, CroozeNoob said:

Without an honest explanation, I would be contacting my lawyer, or throwing the captain in the Brigg!

You can do neither. Legally not a leg to stand on and throwing the captain in the brig, yeah right 

Nor is anyone entitled to 100% of their money back

Edited February 13 by purpleally

[purpleally]

57 minutes ago, ontheweb said:

Only an FCC? Why not a free cruise?

Why?  They are on a cruise

[Mike07]

16 minutes ago, purpleally said:

You can do neither. Legally not a leg to stand on and throwing the captain in the brig, yeah right 

Nor is anyone entitled to 100% of their money back

 

 

Yes, you are right, but if you are not able to recognize a tongue in cheek comment on the internet, I suggest you spend your time as a lurker or elsewhere on CC where you can take your time on a more rational comment.

 

All of these cruise lines in CC can cancel every itinerary and be cruise to nowheres operating 100% within the passenger contract that every single passenger agreed to. But, there are ways to handle itinerary adjustments and there are ways not to... and it seems like the NCL Star is being run by an aloof staff.

 

That being said, mutinies do exist, and there are more passengers than crew.

[Mike07]

33 minutes ago, zqvol said:

For what it’s worth they have also made the change to at least the next two cruises sailing that route. 

 

 

And probably too late for everybody to cancel or postpone and get any semblance of just compensation.

[Mike07]

 

21 minutes ago, purpleally said:

Why?  They are on a cruise

 

 

I'll put you to this way, not all of the passengers on the Star have Tucker money and can take private jets down to Buenos Aires or Ushuaia to see Antarctica. So, some of us have empathy and are victim advocates.