NCL Star passenger revolt

[Panhandle Couple]

2 hours ago, JGander said:

This sounds exactly like bait and switch, especially if they knew in advance and did not tell anyone.

Recommend looking both locations up on google maps before making such statements.

 

[bortman23]

From Cruise Hive "Furthermore, Elephant Island, which the ship is visiting for scenic cruising, is a geographic part of Antarctica administered by the Antarctic Treaty. While it is not the continent’s mainland, it very much is part of Antarctica."

[UKstages]

would somebody, for the love of pete, please share the "explanation."

 

some folk seem to think there was a bonafide explanation offered up by NCL.

 

i still have not seen an actual explanation other than that NCL wished to enhance the guest experience by providing more time in stanley.

 

can we agree that's not an explanation?

 

if not, there's little point in continuing this discussion.

 

that "explanation" doesn't explain why they've chosen to deviate from the original route. 

 

it's not a question of choosing to accept an explanation or not, it's nota. question of what is or is not antarctica... it's a question of knowing an explanation when one sees one. you can't accept an explanation until an explanation is offered.

[Panhandle Couple]

2 minutes ago, bortman23 said:

 

So the articles and reports online reporting that "NCL drops Antarctica from the itinerary" isn't correct?

 

Seems that way to me. I'd be upset like the rest of them had they switched at the last minute, but they're still technical going to Antarctica.

Yes, technically they were never "going to" Antarctica, they were sailing by it.  

 

But it is similar to sailing by North America by going to, say Tampa, vs sailing by Key West.

 

The real impact is the total potential time for viewing other islands on the way to-from Paradise Bay.  But that is always subject to ice flows and wind, and sun vs rain.  They could get several great views, or very few.  But we don't know the route planned through the Shetland Islands, which could also have great views. 

[bortman23]

Just now, Panhandle Couple said:

Yes, technically they were never "going to" Antarctica, they were sailing by it.  

 

But it is similar to sailing by North America by going to, say Tampa, vs sailing by Key West.

 

The real impact is the total potential time for viewing other islands on the way to-from Paradise Bay.  But that is always subject to ice flows and wind, and sun vs rain.  They could get several great views, or very few.  But we don't know the route planned through the Shetland Islands, which could also have great views. 

 

Yeah, I keep seeing all these reports of "NCL skips Antarctica on Antarctica Cruise" which really isn't correct since they're still going there, just a different region. Still annoying but not as TERRIBLE as it's being made out.

[omahabob]

5 minutes ago, UKstages said:

would somebody, for the love of pete, please share the "explanation."...

 

Post #59.

[Panhandle Couple]

13 minutes ago, bortman23 said:

 

Yeah, I keep seeing all these reports of "NCL skips Antarctica on Antarctica Cruise" which really isn't correct since they're still going there, just a different region. Still annoying but not as TERRIBLE as it's being made out.

Old newspaper editor:  "Never let facts get in the way of a good story"

Modernized version:  "Get as many clicks as you can from your headline to get the $0.0001 from advertisers per click."

 

[laudergayle]

2 minutes ago, omahabob said:

 

Post #59.

While I appreciate your agreement with me on the overall impact of the change, NCL has clearly sugar-coated the reason for the change as noted in #8.  The CC posters are credited with the investigative work to uncover the “slow go”, more restrictive requirements of cruising closer to mainland Antartica.  NCL has been illusion, at best.
 

IMO, (which is not often my opinion), NCL was caught by surprise by this change…even though it was announced in 2021 and has been loosely enforced…until now.
 

On the flip side.  If I am the Captain of this ship, you better believe I would be front and center with my crew and passengers, bringing them along with this unexpected change.  
 

I really do not believe this was intentional on behalf of NCL.  However, it will be on NCL as to how they handle this change with their passengers.

[bortman23]

3 minutes ago, laudergayle said:

I really do not believe this was intentional on behalf of NCL.  However, it will be on NCL as to how they handle this change with their passengers.

 

I agree, I doubt this was intentional, but they may have a PR nightmare on their hands shortly (if not already)

Edited February 14 by bortman23

[laudergayle]

Just now, Panhandle Couple said:

Old newspaper editor:  "Never let facts get in the way of a good story"

Modernized version:  "Get as many clicks as you can from your headline to get the $0.0001 from advertisers per click."

 

I laughed only because it’s true.  I, too, have ink in my blood.

 

You failed to mention that in today’s content, there is no requirement to proofread for spelling and grammatical errors.  Makes me 🙃☹️.

[laudergayle]

1 minute ago, bortman23 said:

 

I agree, I doubt this was intentional, but they may have a PR nightmare on their hands shortly (if not already)

Oh yeah…I should have elaborated.  Passengers AND media.

[UKstages]

42 minutes ago, omahabob said:

Post #59.

 

kindly read post #91 in its entirety.

 

46 minutes ago, Panhandle Couple said:

But it is similar to sailing by North America by going to, say Tampa, vs sailing by Key West.

 

hmmm. perhaps.

 

i do know that if i booked a "florida keys" cruise and was told that sailing in and around key west was a central component of that cruise,  i would be pretty upset when tampa was substituted for key west.

 

but, hey, you know, maybe that's just me.

 

and then when hundreds of key west lovers assembled in the atrium to protest and request information, i  would not ignore them. and then when their videos flooded the internet, i wouldn't issue a statement that disguises the truth. i would instead acknowledger my error in communication, i'd explain what happened and why, and i'd apologize to the key west lovers and then, if in fact i or my company screwed up, i'd apologize for that, too and then explain how i intended to make it right. and then i'd make sure that complimentary key lime pie was on the menu in every restaurant that night.

 

but, hey, you know, maybe that's just me.

Edited February 14 by UKstages

[Panhandle Couple]

27 minutes ago, bortman23 said:

From Cruise Hive "Furthermore, Elephant Island, which the ship is visiting for scenic cruising, is a geographic part of Antarctica administered by the Antarctic Treaty. While it is not the continent’s mainland, it very much is part of Antarctica."

For the record.

 

Antarctic Circle at -66 degrees, 30 minutes.  This encompasses 95% of the continent, but not all of the peninsula.

Antarctic Treaty Zone at -60 degrees.  This covers all of the peninsula plus nearly all islands located in the southern sea.

 

Elephant Island at -61 degrees, 8 minutes.  Sometimes called the most desolate place on earth.

 

Admiralty Bay at -62 degrees, 10 minutes. Part of King George Island shoreline, which is part of the Shetland Islands, which run to the northwest of the Antarctic peninsula. 

 

Paradise Bay at -64 degrees, 54 minutes. Called the most scenic bay in Antarctica. 

 

[Panhandle Couple]

20 minutes ago, UKstages said:

 

kindly read post #91 in its entirety.

 

 

hmmm. perhaps.

 

i do know that if i booked a "florida keys" cruise and was told that sailing in and around key west was a central component of that cruise,  i would be pretty upset when tampa was substituted for key west.

 

but, hey, you know, maybe that's just me.

 

and then when hundreds of key west lovers assembled in the atrium to protest and request information, i  would not ignore them. and then when their videos flooded the internet, i wouldn't issue a statement that disguises the truth. i would instead acknowledger my error in communication, i'd explain what happened and why, and i'd apologize to the key west lovers and then, if in fact i or my company screwed up, i'd apologize for that, too and then explain how i intended to make it right. and then i'd make sure that complimentary key lime pie was on the menu in every restaurant that night.

 

but, hey, you know, maybe that's just me.

The point is that no one is getting off the ship in either location.  From the water, both will look the same.  I chose those locations because the mileage difference is similar to this situation.  And actually, in the analogy, it would be the Tampa lovers protesting, not the Key West ones. 

 

Other cruise and tour companies (large and small) advertise the Shetlands as "sailing to Antarctica".  The scenery and wildlife is similar in each place. 

Plus it appears that Elephant Island is added to the changed itinerary, so that is plus.

 

[cruiser2015]

5 hours ago, SeaShark said:

 

Yes, seriously. Would you care to explain what exactly in the explanation is total BS and why? Or is your only argument sticking your fingers in your ears and repeating "nope, nope, nope" hoping it will somehow become true?

It's quite simple.

The "enhanced experience" is a generalization. Further, it makes no sense, by itself, how the itinerary change was an improvement (dropping the highpoint of Antarctica for an extension of the stop in the Falklands does not hold water.

Now, I do care to say these are explanations:

sea conditions

weather conditions

mechanical (ship related) conditions

wildlife preservation situation

imposed speed restrictions (unforseen) - seems NCL tried this one LATER on, but, again, not saying anything about why it happened.

 

The NCL comments make as much sense as the explanation from little kids who, when asked why they did something (foolish or naughty) replied:   "because..."

[cruiser2015]

2 hours ago, UKstages said:

would somebody, for the love of pete, please share the "explanation."

 

some folk seem to think there was a bonafide explanation offered up by NCL.

 

i still have not seen an actual explanation other than that NCL wished to enhance the guest experience by providing more time in stanley.

 

can we agree that's not an explanation?

 

if not, there's little point in continuing this discussion.

 

that "explanation" doesn't explain why they've chosen to deviate from the original route. 

 

it's not a question of choosing to accept an explanation or not, it's nota. question of what is or is not antarctica... it's a question of knowing an explanation when one sees one. you can't accept an explanation until an explanation is offered.

Some of us folk agree with you - 100%

[BirdTravels]

14 hours ago, laudergayle said:

As one previous person mentioned, Antarctic excursions are very expensive…I would question the amount of cash onboard, which is why I suggest the credit card refund, which could be facilitated by onshore excursions department.

You can suggest whatever you want. Cancelled Shore Excursions will be refunded as OBC. Spend it. Cash it. Alaskan ShoreEx are also very expensive and some are cancelled on most cruises due to weather. Pre-pandemic, we booked 3 air tours on one Alaska cruise and all three cancelled due to weather (low ceilings). We spent some of the OBC [quickly] booking alternate excursions. 

 

Pre-pandemic, NCL was very strict and really didn't do anything for cancellations or re-routing. Post-pandemic, they seem to be giving out a few more "good will" credits... even for missing GSC. We were on RCCL cruises where we got a 50% of cruise fare OBC for re-routing because of a hurricane (zero business sense in that offer). 

 

And yes, the cruise line owes you nothing for changing itineraries. Anything you get is "good will". 

 

And yes, we have received [a lot] more than the published offer when changes are announced in advanced by being polite, professional, and making reasonable requests,,, and not going in with guns blazing. Heck, last year, after politely noting a discrepancy in the preparation of my fish, the ship's Executive Chef and Restaurant Director came to our table and we were offered a complimentary surf-n-turf dinner for two with a bottle of wine at Ocean Blue the next night. 

[omahabob]

2 hours ago, laudergayle said:

While I appreciate your agreement with me on the overall impact of the change, NCL has clearly sugar-coated the reason for the change as noted in #8.  The CC posters are credited with the investigative work to uncover the “slow go”, more restrictive requirements of cruising closer to mainland Antartica.  NCL has been illusion, at best.
 

IMO, (which is not often my opinion), NCL was caught by surprise by this change…even though it was announced in 2021 and has been loosely enforced…until now.
 

On the flip side.  If I am the Captain of this ship, you better believe I would be front and center with my crew and passengers, bringing them along with this unexpected change.  
 

I really do not believe this was intentional on behalf of NCL.  However, it will be on NCL as to how they handle this change with their passengers.

 The 2021 announcement did not include where or when the restriction would take place. The 2023 announcement didn't either. So NCL only knew that a restriction was coming, not where or when. It's almost certain they knew somewhere in the interim, but I couldn't find anything that specified when. As I mentioned earlier, there may well have been some late changes or other announcements from the IAATO that may have caught them off guard, but that's only speculation. I was only offering a possible reason for the delay. NCL hasn't really sugar coated anything. They stated the reasons, but apparently only to the news organizations. But as usual, their communication with their customers stinks, and I wasn't excusing that in any way. I was merely answering the questions people had as to why all this happened.

[omahabob]

2 hours ago, UKstages said:

 

kindly read post #91 in its entirety.

 

 

I did, which is why I referenced post #59. The explanation there has nothing to do with the 'guest experience' you said could not be the explanation, so it answered your question.

[wcook]

Has anybody considered that the simplest explanation is often true. And in this case would be: Antarctica doesn’t exist. It’s a lie started by the pro-globe conspiracy. 

[JulianB]

3 hours ago, Panhandle Couple said:

The point is that no one is getting off the ship in either location.  From the water, both will look the same.  I chose those locations because the mileage difference is similar to this situation.  And actually, in the analogy, it would be the Tampa lovers protesting, not the Key West ones. 

 

Other cruise and tour companies (large and small) advertise the Shetlands as "sailing to Antarctica".  The scenery and wildlife is similar in each place. 

Plus it appears that Elephant Island is added to the changed itinerary, so that is plus.

 

As someone who was on the early January sailing I can say that having researched the cruise Paradise Bay is a significant step up from Admarity Bay. What they are doing now is essentially last year's itinerary and I delayed my cruise by a year to do the currently advertised one.

Antarctic is very hit and miss weather wise with many ports cancelled and the Falklands being missed a lot by larger ships.

What worries me most is not the changes (of which NCL seems to be making many at the last moment right now) but the way they are communicated. Their statement to the passengers is utterly patronizing and insulting. Just come out with the reason (we had speed restrictions added and had port times changed with loss of time in port) and tell people what's really happening and not try an spin it as anything else but what has been forced on us or mechanical issues. When you come up with this poor announcement people just assume it's to save money at the expense of those that have already paid.

In closing ....... it was just a fantastic trip despite changing port times and loosing a port in Chile due to weather.

[david_sobe]

I have a question about Antartica cruises.  Some are saying that the NCL ship is still going to Antartica, Elephant Island.  However on the NCL website its not listed on any of the south American cruises.  The itinerary does have it sail past or stop at the Island but its not listed as a port.  Was the cancelled port also like this or was it an actual port where the ship docks and people get off.  I am confused by those who are saying the ship is going to Elephant Island.  The maps on the NCL website just have the ship sailing past it and its not listed as a port.  I think this is an important part of the discussion that I want to understand.

[mrlevin]

43 minutes ago, david_sobe said:

I have a question about Antartica cruises.  Some are saying that the NCL ship is still going to Antartica, Elephant Island.  However on the NCL website its not listed on any of the south American cruises.  The itinerary does have it sail past or stop at the Island but its not listed as a port.  Was the cancelled port also like this or was it an actual port where the ship docks and people get off.  I am confused by those who are saying the ship is going to Elephant Island.  The maps on the NCL website just have the ship sailing past it and its not listed as a port.  I think this is an important part of the discussion that I want to understand.

Even on expedition ships, Elephant Island is often just a sail by; it is too hard to land.  We were lucky and actually landed there in 2012.  You should be able to see penguins and seals and relish in the history of the island; hopefully you will have a Shackleton lecture onboard.

 

None of the Antarctic "ports" are accessible by non-expedition ships; just sail by.

[david_sobe]

4 minutes ago, mrlevin said:

Even on expedition ships, Elephant Island is often just a sail by; it is too hard to land.  We were lucky and actually landed there in 2012.  You should be able to see penguins and seals and relish in the history of the island; hopefully you will have a Shackleton lecture onboard.

 

None of the Antarctic "ports" are accessible by non-expedition ships; just sail by.

Thank you. Thats sort of what I thought.  But I swore I heard people talking about excursions on this thread.   So no matter what, no one walks on the continent?  That is for the specialized cruises that go there exclusively?

Then its not really a cancelled port but a cancelled sail by?

Edited February 14 by david_sobe

[mrlevin]

3 minutes ago, david_sobe said:

Thank you. Thats sort of what I thought.  But I swore I heard people talking about excursions on this thread.   So no matter what, no one walks on the continent?  That is for the specialized cruises that go there exclusively?

Don't walk on continent; don't walk on islands; don't get into a zodiac; unless on expedition ship with less than 200 passengers.