NCL Star Passenger Revolt!

[Hlitner]

Some here on the O board might be interested in what is happening over on the NCL Board.  Apparently the NCL Star was supposed to be going on a South America/Antarctica cruise, but after they boarded found out that NCL had quietly eliminated Antarctica from the itinerary.  Or course these folks paid a lot of extra money for an Antarctic cruise only to be shafted at the last minute.  Makes you wonder what is going on at NCLH.   Major itinerary changes, after final payment, with no explanation seem to an increasing common occurrence.  Friends of ours on a recently completed O cruise were not pleased when they had all kinds of changes (during their cruise) in the Middle East/South Asia, although one could easily attribute that to the war which is certianly not the fault of any cruise line.

 

Hank

[pinotlover]

For those numerous posters here that bought and own NCLH stock, how are the current earnings doing? In the red or black? 

[MEFIowa]

High volatility in the stock. Over past year has bounced around from around $12 low to high around $23. Now about $16. Down a bit over 4% over the past year. From a few days ago:

 

"Shares of cruise ship company Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings (NYSE: NCLH) dropped 11.2% in January, according to data provided by S&P Global Market Intelligence. Cruise stocks weren't exactly popular during the month, and Norwegian is viewed by some as one of the riskier publicly traded cruise companies."

[Jim_Iain]

Financials have been Positive Y/Y.   Stock Price have been relatively flat since beginning of year - High 17.32 and Low of $16.33 (today).   

 

[mnocket]

I'm sure the cruise contract says NCL can make just about any change they want to the cruise, but that doesn't make it right to wait until after final payment, or even worse until after customers board to announce a change they knew of in advance.  In fact I find it downright dishonest.  A good example was when Bora Bora enacted restrictions on ship sizes.  This was known months in advance of many cruise departures, yet some cruise lines chose to wait until the cruises were actually underway before informing customers that they would not be visiting Bora Bora.  Far from ethical in my opinion. 

Edited February 13 by mnocket

[thebsinmiss]

Its consistent actions like this on the part of several (most?) cruise lines that are putting off a lot of cruisers. I can understand canceling ports due to legitimate safety concerns (ex: middle east) or legitimate weather issues (as opposed to citing weather when its dead calm seas and sunny ) The NCL fiasco is just the latest example.

 

We are looking forward to our June cruise and will enjoy it even if changes get made on the fly but the cost and apparent disdain for customers will likely make this our last cruise.  For the money we can book extremely nice all inclusive resorts in interesting places or even do a multi city rail vacation. 

 

We will be voting with our feet and our money.

[Snaefell3]

3 hours ago, pinotlover said:

For those numerous posters here that bought and own NCLH stock, how are the current earnings doing? In the red or black? 

What might be more informative is that CCL (10%) and RCI (13%) have begun paying down the extra debt they racked up from 2020-2022, but NCLH has not.

[QuestionEverything]

As we book for itinerary only, suffice it to say that booking cruises is not high on our list. It seems that the NCL "family" has some issues here, as many have posted above and before on many threads.

[njhorseman]

1 hour ago, Jim_Iain said:

Financials have been Positive Y/Y. 

Y/Y positive doesn't mean the financials are good, just better than the same period last year.

If they made a 2 dollar profit last year a 3 dollar profit this year it produces a positive Y/Y, but if they need a $30 million dollar profit to pay down some of their debt that $3 doesn't cut it...and as has already been stated, NCLH has not yet been able to start reducing the additional debt it amassed during the COVID shutdown.

[clo]

9 hours ago, Hlitner said:

but after they boarded found out that NCL had quietly eliminated Antarctica from the itinerary.

Holy Cow! (Not allowed to write what I'd like to!)

[clo]

6 hours ago, thebsinmiss said:

We are looking forward to our June cruise and will enjoy it even if changes get made on the fly but the cost and apparent disdain for customers will likely make this our last cruise. 

Ditto. We have some ports of our July cruise that were pretty key to booking the trip. No more stress.

[Snaefell3]

5 hours ago, njhorseman said:

and as has already been stated, NCLH has not yet been able to start reducing the additional debt it amassed during the COVID shutdown.

Pardon if I split a hair:  "has not started" is all we know.

Might be "can't", might be "chose not to".

[Hlitner]

8 hours ago, thebsinmiss said:

Its consistent actions like this on the part of several (most?) cruise lines that are putting off a lot of cruisers. I can understand canceling ports due to legitimate safety concerns (ex: middle east) or legitimate weather issues (as opposed to citing weather when its dead calm seas and sunny ) The NCL fiasco is just the latest example.

 

We are looking forward to our June cruise and will enjoy it even if changes get made on the fly but the cost and apparent disdain for customers will likely make this our last cruise.  For the money we can book extremely nice all inclusive resorts in interesting places or even do a multi city rail vacation. 

 

We will be voting with our feet and our money.

WOW a bit harsh even for this frequent critic of lousyory cruise line policies.  DW and I love to travel and also love to cruise.  Over a 50 year cruise history we have learned to move with the tides and search for the good stuff.  We have also done a few all-inclusive resorts, enjoyed them, and had the usual issues of chair hogs and food that was never quite up to the advertised standards.  We still do some AI resorts, but we can never get our love of being on a ship out of our system.  There are many different cruise lines, many different ships (in all sizes). so do not give up on cruising because of the acts of one or two companies.

 

Hank

[clo]

14 minutes ago, Hlitner said:

so do not give up on cruising because of the acts of one or two companies.

One or two? I'll certainly be checking out every one of them before I book another. 

[Snaefell3]

I'd be miffed were I aboard the Star, but for some context:

[clo]

23 minutes ago, Snaefell3 said:

I'd be miffed were I aboard the Star, but for some context:

We were there a few years ago. Granted it was an expedition cruise (small ship where we got to go ashore) . But I tell ya what if I had walked onto any ship that I had "bought" I'd be furious. Disappointed? Oh sure. But foaming at the mouth furious. With wifi on board I'd be contacting a lawyer before I ever disembarked. I hope a whole lot of those pax.

[clo]

Well, it's hit a little bit of media 🙂

 

https://www.newsbreak.com/news/3332242198706-passengers-are-furious-after-norwegian-cruise-line-removed-antarctica-from-its-itinerary-after-everyone-had-boarded?noAds=1&_f=app_share&s=a3&share_destination_id=MTA3NTY1MzM2LTE3MDc4Nzg5ODEzNTY%3D

[njhorseman]

2 hours ago, Snaefell3 said:

Pardon if I split a hair:  "has not started" is all we know.

Might be "can't", might be "chose not to".

No, it's "can't" simply because they have lagged the other major cruise line holding companies in returning to profitability. When you see NCLH issuing senior secured notes in 2023 totaling over $1 billion with interest rates of  8.125%, 8.375% and 9.75% that allowed them to kick debt with due dates that were coming up shortly down the road several years you know that it's "can't', not "chose not to". 

 Interest rates that high are not exactly a sign of lender confidence in NCLH's finances.

 

NCLH's 3rd Q 2023 results show signs of them turning the profitability corner, and I'll be interested in seeing what the full year results show when the full year results are published in their 2023 !0K, which should be out shortly..

[njhorseman]

13 hours ago, Hlitner said:

Some here on the O board might be interested in what is happening over on the NCL Board.  Apparently the NCL Star was supposed to be going on a South America/Antarctica cruise, but after they boarded found out that NCL had quietly eliminated Antarctica from the itinerary.  Or course these folks paid a lot of extra money for an Antarctic cruise only to be shafted at the last minute.  Makes you wonder what is going on at NCLH.   Major itinerary changes, after final payment, with no explanation seem to an increasing common occurrence.  Friends of ours on a recently completed O cruise were not pleased when they had all kinds of changes (during their cruise) in the Middle East/South Asia, although one could easily attribute that to the war which is certianly not the fault of any cruise line.

 

Hank

It was never an 'Antarctica" cruise as a ship that size can't do actual Antarctic landings. It was a "sail by" scenic cruise and a sail by of an island that is still considered to be part of Antarctica but closer to South America was substituted for the original itinerary sail by location.

Sorry, but the whole story is an exaggeration and misstatement of the itinerary change.

[Poulsbo Cruisers]

1 hour ago, njhorseman said:

It was never an 'Antarctica" cruise as a ship that size can't do actual Antarctic landings. It was a "sail by" scenic cruise and a sail by of an island that is still considered to be part of Antarctica but closer to South America was substituted for the original itinerary sail by location.

Sorry, but the whole story is an exaggeration and misstatement of the itinerary change.

Then why did both NCL and Oceania change the title of the cruises to remove Antarctica? If you are changing the descriptive title of the cruise, you are substantially changing the cruise. I’m sure anyone booking primarily for Antarctica is going to be very disappointed. 

[pinotlover]

One issue with this scenario.

 

Did the Captain wake up on Embarkment Day and make the itinerary change?

 

Did corporate make it on Embarkment Day?

 

If not, when was the decision for the change in itinerary made? Why was it not communicated then to the passengers? Why wait until boarding to announce itinerary changes? 
 

Was NCL ever intending to do the published itinerary? Bad corporate communications breeds mistrust. NCLH excels at bad corporate communications.

[Snaefell3]

53 minutes ago, njhorseman said:

No, it's "can't" simply because they have lagged the other major cruise line holding companies in returning to profitability.

Uhh...  Check again: It was CCL who lagged.  CCL's EPS went positive in Q3, NCLH (and RCL) went positive in Q2. 

 

In any event, I'm not interested in holding more than 100 shares of any of them, and then only for whomever I'm about to sail with, and only until I debark. 😉 

[Snaefell3]

3 minutes ago, pinotlover said:

One issue with this scenario.

 

Did the Captain wake up on Embarkment Day and make the itinerary change?

 

Did corporate make it on Embarkment Day?

 

If not, when was the decision for the change in itinerary made? Why was it not communicated then to the passengers? Why wait until boarding to announce itinerary changes? 
 

Was NCL ever intending to do the published itinerary? Bad corporate communications breeds mistrust. NCLH excels at bad corporate communications.

My 2¢, money-back, guess:

There was a last minute "Oh, sh*t!" moment when someone got around to plugging in this season's IAATO's speed restrictions into last season's voyage management plan.

 

Then someone said, "If you see Admiralty Bay, you've basically seen Paradise Bay", forgetting that it's easier to claim "I've been to *Antarctica*!" having done the latter.

[clo]

2 hours ago, njhorseman said:

It was never an 'Antarctica" cruise as a ship that size can't do actual Antarctic landings.

EXCUSE ME! Have you been there? I have. And I got to go ashore. And it was wonderful. But it's also wonderful if you can ride all around it and see something completely unique. @ORV can you weigh in here? I'm ALMOST beyond belief that anyone in the world could justify what was done?

[edgee]

4 hours ago, njhorseman said:

It was never an 'Antarctica" cruise as a ship that size can't do actual Antarctic landings. It was a "sail by" scenic cruise and a sail by of an island that is still considered to be part of Antarctica but closer to South America was substituted for the original itinerary sail by location.

Sorry, but the whole story is an exaggeration and misstatement of the itinerary 

Irrelevant point. While I certainly agree that a cruise that lands in Antartica is better in terms of representing the true feel and opportunity to touch the white continent, a cruise that is a drive by of a portion of Anarctica is no less an Antartica cruise by definition than one that makes landings. No exaggeration, except for the lack of advance notice, this move by NCL ranks right up there with the corporation's reniging on promise to refund guests booked on significantly altered infamous Riviera Red Sea cruise.

Edited February 14 by edgee