NCL Star Passenger Revolt!

[TomTN]

19 hours ago, njhorseman said:

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.

Seems they have found a way to cut cost.

[QuestionEverything]

Thanks to everyone who is posting here.

The attack on itinerary by cruise lines, and it appears the NCL brands in particular, is of significant concern to the consumer.

Anyone knows there are times given weather, port traffic, mechanical failure where an itinerary has to be changed. I have sailed on many Great Lakes vessels, so I am very aware and tolerant for the complexities of shipping.

However, my experience with Oceania has been fraught with cancellations for many reasons that were not justified and substantiated in my consideration - further, have never had a detailed explanation from any Oceania captain - and as we know Oceania is not well favored for corporate communication.

Having technology like AIS helps the guest see what ships are in or approaching ports and that assists in evaluating an upcoming "excuse" related to the ship one is on.

There does seem to be an increase of port arrival situations across all the lines.

Because of this, I am very wary of booking a cruise with any cruise line and even more wary of doing business with Oceania in this regard.

 

[njhorseman]

10 hours ago, Poulsbo Cruisers said:

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. 

IMO Antarctica shouldn't be used in the title of a sail by cruise to begin with so its use in the original itinerary was every bit as bad. That title should be reserved for cruises that have actual Antarctic landings. Now there won't be any misunderstanding regardless of where the sail by actually goes.

[njhorseman]

10 hours ago, Snaefell3 said:

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. 😉 

You're right...NCLH made a gigantic $.20 per share in Q2 then hit $.71 in Q3.

Because of Carnival's fiscal year their Q3 earnings of $.79 (diluted) are through August 31 so there's not a full three month difference in the timelines.

[Poulsbo Cruisers]

3 minutes ago, njhorseman said:

IMO Antarctica shouldn't be used in the title of a sail by cruise to begin with so its use in the original itinerary was every bit as bad. That title should be reserved for cruises that have actual Antarctic landings. Now there won't be any misunderstanding regardless of where the sail by actually goes.

Everyone booking the cruise knew they weren’t landing in Antarctica. They were sailing close enough to see the continent, not some remote island as a substitute. Just as those sailing Glacier Bay in Alaska know they aren’t docking on the glacier. 

[njhorseman]

1 minute ago, Poulsbo Cruisers said:

Everyone booking the cruise knew they weren’t landing in Antarctica. They were sailing close enough to see the continent, not some remote island as a substitute. Just as those sailing Glacier Bay in Alaska know they aren’t docking on the glacier. 

I'm glad you know that everyone on the cruise was aware of that. If you read these boards enough it's almost frightening to learn what people don't know about their cruises that may seem obvious to you or me.

[njhorseman]

9 hours ago, clo said:

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?

Never landed there and my one sail by cruise had its itinerary changed by weather. Having spoken to my sister, who has done both, and having seen her pictures it's pretty clear to me that the two aren't even remotely comparable.

The cruise did a sail by of an island that is part of Antarctica, so even though it wasn't part of the mainland IMO it still falls within the boundaries of what they were defining as an "Antarctic" cruise.

[mnocket]

13 hours ago, njhorseman said:

It was never an 'Antarctica" cruise

Today I learned that a drive-by cruise in Antarctica is not an Antarctica cruise.  You might want to tell these people.  They seem to think they are enjoying an Antarctica cruise

 

Edited February 14 by mnocket

[clo]

12 hours ago, pinotlover said:

Bad corporate communications breeds mistrust. NCLH excels at bad corporate communications.

And when you lose a customer it's way harder to get them back than it was to get them in the first place. And that lost customer tells others who DO trust that lost customer.

[Flatbush Flyer]

13 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 change.

Plus 1 

[clo]

3 hours ago, QuestionEverything said:

Because of this, I am very wary of booking a cruise with any cruise line and even more wary of doing business with Oceania in this regard.

 

We're not long term cruisers and I was telling my husband last night that I'd have to look long and hard at ever cruising again after our paid in full one in July.

[clo]

2 hours ago, njhorseman said:

IMO Antarctica shouldn't be used in the title of a sail by cruise to begin with so its use in the original itinerary was every bit as bad. That title should be reserved for cruises that have actual Antarctic landings. Now there won't be any misunderstanding regardless of where the sail by actually goes.

Are you aware of how few ships can actually make a landing. Fewer than 500 pax to begin with. There's a TREATY there. Worldwide treaty. So think of all the cruises you've been on where the ship was small enough. So for many, many people seeing it in person, even at a distance, is awesome.

[Woodrowst]

11 hours ago, edgee said:

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.

I have been to both the Antarctic peninsula and the nearby Shetland Islands and I don’t get it.  I am sure the penguins can tell the difference, but for the layperson both are indistinguishable from each other.  Same penguins, seals, whales, icebergs and beautiful vistas.  They are both wonderful places to do scenic cruising.  Plus, the change allows more time in the Falklands which is also fantastic.  So exactly what is the big deal about substituting cruising the Shetland Island for cruising the Antarctic peninsula?  Is it for bragging rights to say that you have been above the Antarctic circle?  That might not have happened anyway - not all of the Antarctic peninsula lies within the circle.

[njhorseman]

1 hour ago, clo said:

Are you aware of how few ships can actually make a landing. Fewer than 500 pax to begin with. There's a TREATY there. Worldwide treaty. So think of all the cruises you've been on where the ship was small enough. So for many, many people seeing it in person, even at a distance, is awesome.

I am well aware of the regulations governing the size of ships that can make Antarctic landings. In fact if you read my first post on this subject it says "a ship that size can't do actual Antarctic landings".  

 

What you are failing to understand is that the passengers on the ship did see "it in person" because the revised sail by itinerary included an island that is part of "it", Antarctica. What they didn't see is a small piece of the Antarctic mainland.

 

[njhorseman]

2 hours ago, mnocket said:

Today I learned that a drive-by cruise in Antarctica is not an Antarctica cruise.  You might want to tell these people.  They seem to think they are enjoying an Antarctica cruise

 

I suggest you read the thread carefully

 

They're not just thinking they are enjoying an Antarctica cruise, they were enjoying an Antarctica cruise.

 

The ship spent seven days cruising the Antarctic peninsula, and per the OP on most days did landings:

"We had 7 expedition days on our cruise.  A typical day was a landing in the morning and a zodiac cruise in the afternoon. There were a couple of days where we deviated from this and just did a zodiac cruise and then another activity like whale watching from the ship but most days we did both."

 

The thread you cited was about an expedition cruise on a 250 passenger Seabourn ship, not a sail by itinerary on a 2,000 passenger NCL ship.

Edited February 14 by njhorseman

[clo]

41 minutes ago, njhorseman said:

I am well aware of the regulations governing the size of ships that can make Antarctic landings. In fact if you read my first post on this subject it says "a ship that size can't do actual Antarctic landings".  

 

What you are failing to understand is that the passengers on the ship did see "it in person" because the revised sail by itinerary included an island that is part of "it", Antarctica. What they didn't see is a small piece of the Antarctic mainland.

 

LOL. I think I'm going to let the media and the courts make final judgments and you and your sister and I can mind our own business, personal opinions put aside.

[Yesimapirate]

7 hours ago, clo said:

And when you lose a customer it's way harder to get them back than it was to get them in the first place. And that lost customer tells others who DO trust that lost customer.

I read multiple boards when I come in CC.  And every time I log in,  there's someone on every board saying essentially the same thing you are.   And yet, just about every cruise line is seeing such demand that prices are through the roof and cabins are full.  Is it just possible that not only are the threats not hurting the cruiselines but maybe it's even giving them a chance to replace you with a less demanding and thus more profitable customer?

 

The "I'm never going to sail you again " threat often makes you feel good but the reality is no one other than your circle of friends and family will care.

[FlyerTalker]

7 hours ago, clo said:

We're not long term cruisers and I was telling my husband last night that I'd have to look long and hard at ever cruising again after our paid in full one in July.

 

Given your desire to have everything locked in stone, that might be an appropriate choice for your vacations.  I've personally had many itinerary changes for cruises over the years -- and just rolled with the punches as this being a fact of life.  Medical diversions, weather, political unrest and more.  Twas not the end of the world for us.  It may be for others.

 

 

[FlyerTalker]

15 minutes ago, Yesimapirate said:

I read multiple boards when I come in CC.  And every time I log in,  there's someone on every board saying essentially the same thing you are.   And yet, just about every cruise line is seeing such demand that prices are through the roof and cabins are full.  Is it just possible that not only are the threats not hurting the cruiselines but maybe it's even giving them a chance to replace you with a less demanding and thus more profitable customer?

 

The "I'm never going to sail you again " threat often makes you feel good but the reality is no one other than your circle of friends and family will care.

 

And if you think that's a factor in cruising, the same kind of grousing about airlines is several quanta level beyond that.

 

Those folks who will "never fly XX again" - often the first ones to do so if the price is $10 cheaper for a ticket.

 

 

 

[Yesimapirate]

2 minutes ago, FlyerTalker said:

 

And if you think that's a factor in cruising, the same kind of grousing about airlines is several quanta level beyond that.

 

Those folks who will "never fly XX again" - often the first ones to do so if the price is $10 cheaper for a ticket.

 

 

 

Absolutely!  And don't forget the hotels and everything else travel related.  

 

I'm going to assume from your SN that you've spent some time on a similarly named website.   Flying 200,000+ miles a year I've spent quite a bit of time there in the past myself and you're spot on!

[TRLD]

8 hours ago, Woodrowst said:

I have been to both the Antarctic peninsula and the nearby Shetland Islands and I don’t get it.  I am sure the penguins can tell the difference, but for the layperson both are indistinguishable from each other.  Same penguins, seals, whales, icebergs and beautiful vistas.  They are both wonderful places to do scenic cruising.  Plus, the change allows more time in the Falklands which is also fantastic.  So exactly what is the big deal about substituting cruising the Shetland Island for cruising the Antarctic peninsula?  Is it for bragging rights to say that you have been above the Antarctic circle?  That might not have happened anyway - not all of the Antarctic peninsula lies within the circle.

Even most of the exploration cruises that land do not cross the Antarctic Circle. Some do, but those that do usually are longer and advertise crossing the circle.

 

Most stay further north than the San Martin base and the circle is further south than that.

Edited February 15 by TRLD

[FlyerTalker]

37 minutes ago, TRLD said:

Even most of the exploration cruises that land do not cross the Antarctic Circle. Some do, but those that do usually are longer and advertise crossing the circle.

 

Most stay further north than the San Martin base and the circle is further south than that.

 

And often, there's no safe passage to sail beyond the Circle.

 

 

[clo]

52 minutes ago, FlyerTalker said:

 

Given your desire to have everything locked in stone, that might be an appropriate choice for your vacations.  I've personally had many itinerary changes for cruises over the years -- and just rolled with the punches as this being a fact of life.  Medical diversions, weather, political unrest and more.  Twas not the end of the world for us.  It may be for others.

 

 

We've done scores more diy land trips and escorted trips than cruises. Mainly because we want to really visit a place. Dubrovnik was a stop on an escorted tour. A couple of ships were in and the place was completely mobbed. Shoulder to shoulder. We finally took a side street and then another and found quiet. And a nice place to have lunch and wine. There's been recent posting about the large cruise ships and their damage to the ports. And that they don't make all that much money. Pre-covid and our last cruise, we cruised from Rio to Buenos Aires (two cities by the way that you couldn't possibly 'do' in a couple of days.) Since then we kinda kicked ourselves that we didn't 'just' go back Rio and then fly to BA. We're not beach people so that factor doesn't affect us.

 

Back to your beginning: "Given your desire to have everything locked in stone," LOL Try helping push your jeep out of the mud in Africa in the dark. Now THAT is a fun memory.

[cruisemom42]

10 hours ago, njhorseman said:

IMO Antarctica shouldn't be used in the title of a sail by cruise to begin with so its use in the original itinerary was every bit as bad. That title should be reserved for cruises that have actual Antarctic landings. Now there won't be any misunderstanding regardless of where the sail by actually goes.

 

The issue is that cruise lines sell these "Antarctica" drive bys at substantially increased prices over just cruises that visit South America. For some people, it is the closest they'll be able to get to Antarctica as many cannot afford the pricey expedition ships. Nor can those who are elderly or infirm easily manage the "landings."

 

If they're going to charge more for "Antarctica" they ought to provide it -- or a refund making the cruise cost the equivalent of the S.A. sailings. 

 

This is the kind of thing that is covered under UK consumer laws for cruise ship passengers that book their cruises with UK agencies. I haven't read the specific wording, but it has been indicated in past posts that I've read that cruise lines have to make passengers whole when a) embarkation and/or disembarkation ports are changed; b) when 40% (I think) or more of the itinerary is changed; or c) the itinerary no longer visits key areas named in the itinerary.

 

 

[FlyerTalker]

3 minutes ago, clo said:

we cruised from Rio to Buenos Aires (two cities by the way that you couldn't possibly 'do' in a couple of days.) Since then we kinda kicked ourselves that we didn't 'just' go back Rio and then fly to BA.

 

Of course, you could have just gone to Rio three or four days before the cruise and stayed in Buenos Aires after the cruise was over.