Dawn passengers left “stranded” on African island

[dmwnc1959]

7 minutes ago, Two Wheels Only said:

 

...and ships will continue to sail at over 100% capacity....and more people will book NCL sponsored excursions instead of booking independent excursions.  

Of course people book NCL shore excursions, of course ships are sailing at 100% capacity, and of course, despite the fact that you may want to deny this, people book independent shore excursions even in places like Alaska. That’s a simple fact.

[graphicguy]

15 minutes ago, cltnccruisers said:

Cruise lines vet, or clam to, all ship sponsored excursion operators.  They do not do the same for independents.  Do we even know the name of the tour operation?  There seem to be a lot of holes in this story.

There's a reason those NCL excursions cost more.  NCL gets their cut.  But, they also get tour operators who LOVE to have a steady and reliable stream of business like partnering with a cruise ship.  So, it behooves them to perform well for them (and ultimately, the guests).

 

As an aside, I know if I add my Latitudes discount and the $50 excursion credit via FAS, the NCL excursions are not a bad deal at all.

[dmwnc1959]

1 minute ago, Menocchio said:

I've had some Senegalese food. It's amazing. I'd definitely go there if I ever have the chance. But I might never have the chance.

 

I might go to the Bahamas someday just because I'm bored and it's cheaper and easier to get to than even many places in the continental USA.

I’ve had some great Philly cheesesteak sandwiches, too, might go back to Philadelphia but I heard it’s dangerous. 

[dexddd]

I'd agree this was on the tour operator from what I've read but the group certainly has the know how to get this wide coverage.  It is everywhere.  Saw several places yesterday, today it was on a main news outlet, on MSN main page, it was even talked about on a syndicated radio show focused on comedy with a special song written (although the song was geared about being stuck in Mexico).  All the articles/coverage puts blame on NCL and none on people/operator.

[Yaya_in_Oz]

Well, down under, this has barely rated a mention on the nightly news and I'm sure it only got a 2 minute mention as there were a couple of Aussies left behind. Basically the passengers were late so the ship sailed without them.

 

I also can't see it having much effect on NCL bookings. Cruisers know the rules about getting back on time and booking independent tours at your own risk. Most of the cruise lines have the same rule and people being left behind is nothing new. 

NCL and the port person were assisting them and they are group of 8, not exactly on their own. I simply can't see it being NCL's fault. I hope ships and other forms of transport never start waiting for latecomers. Yeh, all circumstances are extenuating to the individual.

 

[dmwnc1959]

10 minutes ago, blackwing said:

You're right.  People take non-cruise sponsored excursions all the time.  But 99% of those people make sure that whatever non-cruise sponsored excursion they take will get them back to the boat on time. 

And 100% of passengers have zero control of whether or not they get back to the ship on time, whether it’s booked through the cruise line or independently. Anything can happen from a vehicle breakdown to extreme inclement weather. Once the passenger steps off of the ship, everything is outside of their control.

[Ashlynkat]

25 minutes ago, dmwnc1959 said:

It’s been stated here that people also believe that every circumstance is different. The all-aboard time for the Bahamas or Jamaica is different than whatever circumstances led to the this incident. The next port of call could’ve easily been delayed, and as it was eventually canceled due to inclement weather.
 

Not falling for the NCL corporate washing their hands of this. The appear to feel somewhat responsible by reimbursing the passengers of all their expenses of catching up to the ship.

 

😁

Our next port of call after São Tomé was Abidjan, Ivory Coast after a sea day and it was not cancelled. Gambia was scheduled to be 3 days after Ivory Coast. 
 

Another point that has not been mentioned is that we were traveling through the Gulf of Guinea which, like the waters by Somalia, has significant piracy issues. We found out yesterday that the ship had been carrying extra security personnel and arms as safety precautions. The Gambian navy went out to meet us yesterday to retrieve the ammunition as we are now out of danger and there are apparently restrictions about cruise ships carrying these things. 
 

I don’t know how much the piracy risk played into the Captain’s decision back in São Tomé but it’s worth noting. 

[Woofbite]

3 minutes ago, dmwnc1959 said:

So, based on this, you know all of the details of exactly what happened while they were out on their shore excursion, you know exactly why it was late, and you know exactly why they couldn’t make it back to the ship. How nice of you to make blanket condemnation of people that do non-cruise line sponsored shore excursions. 

Sorry, don't know the details and don't really need to know.  I do know that anyone taking an independent tour has to realize that things can always go wrong and they may have to plan for the unexpected.  Traffic accidents being the most common.  Judgment matters in life.  Travelers should be expected to use some.

 

[Two Wheels Only]

11 minutes ago, dmwnc1959 said:

Of course people book NCL shore excursions, of course ships are sailing at 100% capacity, and of course, despite the fact that you may want to deny this, people book independent shore excursions even in places like Alaska. That’s a simple fact.

 

I'm not denying anything. I've booked independent excursions, too.

 

My point is that whatever negative publicity this will generate, NCL will continue to fill their ships and as a possible side effect, people might be less likely to book the independent excursion if (in the back of their mind) people remember this story. 

Edited April 2 by Two Wheels Only

[blackwing]

6 minutes ago, dmwnc1959 said:

So, based on this, you know all of the details of exactly what happened while they were out on their shore excursion, you know exactly why it was late, and you know exactly why they couldn’t make it back to the ship. How nice of you to make blanket condemnation of people that do non-cruise line sponsored shore excursions. 

What details do we need to know?  The most important detail is that they failed to get back onto the ship by the onboard time.  Does it matter if it was the tour operator's fault at running the tour too long?  Maybe.  The problem is that this is an island that isn't used to getting many cruise ship passengers and this tour operator isn't as familiar with how cruise ships operate and the adamant need to be on time.  If this is what happened, then these passengers should be blaming him. 

 

But instead, they are blaming NCL, almost certainly with the aim that they will get some money or compensation out of this.  I watched the GMA interview.  The lead couple, so wholesome and just good ol' American folks.  Probably hoping they will get a movie deal out of this to dramatize their story.

[Laszlo]

I almost forgot about this, in 2014? we were on the Dawn doing a Western Caribbean cruise. One of our stops was in Belize City, back when NCL went there. It was a tender port. We did a ships excursion to some Mayan temples. It was an all day event. 60 mile bus ride then another 20 miles on a boat and back again. We got off at 7am and were supposed to be back at 4pm. The bus broke down about 40 miles from the port coming back. Our tour guides were on the phone with the tour company and NCL. It was 7:00pm by the time we got back to the tender pier in Belize City. The tender had 4 NCL workers on it, we quickly got on and were boarding the ship at 7:20pm. 

[Kortehgehn]

38 minutes ago, dmwnc1959 said:

Not falling for the NCL corporate washing their hands of this. The appear to feel somewhat responsible by reimbursing the passengers of all their expenses of catching up to the ship.

I must have missed this... I wasn't aware that NCL was reimbursing any of the passengers costs in this situation.

[dmwnc1959]

5 minutes ago, Ashlynkat said:

Another point that has not been mentioned is that we were traveling through the Gulf of Guinea which, like the waters by Somalia, has significant piracy issues. We found out yesterday that the ship had been carrying extra security personnel and arms as safety precautions. The Gambian navy went out to meet us yesterday to retrieve the ammunition as we are now out of danger and there are apparently restrictions about cruise ships carrying these things. 
 

I don’t know how much the piracy risk played into the Captain’s decision back in São Tomé but it’s worth noting. 

Wow, imagine that, a ship sailing through pirate infested water so dangerous that it required extra security and ammunition? Maybe they should’ve canceled the entire itinerary. 

[blackwing]

5 minutes ago, dmwnc1959 said:

And 100% of passengers have zero control of whether or not they get back to the ship on time, whether it’s booked through the cruise line or independently. Anything can happen from a vehicle breakdown to extreme inclement weather. Once the passenger steps off of the ship, everything is outside of their control.

I disagree.  There are some things that are out of control, like weather and car issues.  But there are plenty of things that ARE within a passenger's control.  Such as gauging whether it is a good idea to take a tour of say, 6 hours roundtrip, when there are only 8 hours on shore.  Booking the dolphin swim at the place 15 minutes from the dock on your own instead of doing it through the cruise line?  Almost certainly safe.  Booking a private tour with a guy who will show you around and there's not a definite itinerary or absolute timeframe?  Risky.

 

I think the thing you keep ignoring in your repeated defense of these passengers is that the lead couple are supposedly very experienced cruisers.  They should have known all of this.  And yet when they made a colossal mistake, they are trying to act like the cruise line did them wrong.

[Two Wheels Only]

2 minutes ago, blackwing said:

Probably hoping they will get a movie deal out of this to dramatize their story.

 

"In a world...." - Redd Pepper

[dmwnc1959]

5 minutes ago, Woofbite said:

Sorry, don't know the details and don't really need to know.  I do know that anyone taking an independent tour has to realize that things can always go wrong and they may have to plan for the unexpected.  Traffic accidents being the most common.  Judgment matters in life.  Travelers should be expected to use some.

 

Had this happened to a bus load of ship-sponsored shore excursion passengers in the Caribbean or Alaska would you still be defending the cruise line? I guess in your eyes - and the eyes are so many people here - the cruise line can do no role. 

[Ashlynkat]

For those interested, here’s a pic of the Gambian navy ship that met us yesterday off the coast to retrieve the arms we were carrying through the Gulf of Guinea. 

[blackwing]

2 minutes ago, dmwnc1959 said:

Had this happened to a bus load of ship-sponsored shore excursion passengers in the Caribbean or Alaska would you still be defending the cruise line? I guess in your eyes - and the eyes are so many people here - the cruise line can do no role. 

The difference is that if this was a NCL sponsored excursion, then the ship would do everything in its power to wait.  And on the off chance that the ship absolutely couldn't wait, then it is on NCL to make sure they pay for all expenses to get the people to the next port.

 

These passengers who stranded themselves are almost certainly looking for full reimbursement of their costs, and I think they deserve zero.

[Ashlynkat]

5 minutes ago, dmwnc1959 said:

Wow, imagine that, a ship sailing through pirate infested water so dangerous that it required extra security and ammunition? Maybe they should’ve canceled the entire itinerary. 

Or take extra security precautions like NCL did and stay on schedule so the ship doesn’t stay in a high piracy zone any longer than it needs to? 

[WonderMan3]

2 hours ago, dmwnc1959 said:

I think it would be different if this was in the Bahamas, or Australia, or Bermuda, or Italy, or somewhere that wasn’t bordering Third World country status. Africa is not safe by any stretch of the imagination.

If a port was not safe for passengers to debark then the cruise line would not go there. And to just make a blanket statement that “Africa is not safe” is a bit slanderous and factually incorrect. Are there particular places within the CONTINENT of Africa that are not safe, certainly. Just as there are a number of places here in the United States that are not safe, or in France or the UK and so on. I mean just to look as an example, let’s compare the crime rate of São Tomé where these passengers were “stranded” to Fort Lauderdale, FL which is one of the key ports for boarding a cruise in the U.S. where many of us have spent time. I have never felt unsafe in Ft. Lauderdale and yet its crime rate is considered moderate while São Tomé’s is considered very low. 

 

https://www.numbeo.com/crime/in/Fort-Lauderdale

 

https://www.numbeo.com/crime/country_result.jsp?country=Sao+Tome+And+Principe

 

Now if you want to say that Africa can be a more challenging destination to be “stranded” in (due to more limited flights, increased barriers with English not being spoken as readily, etc.) there is more weight to that argument but we still should not be generalizing an entire continent because there is a vast difference between being left behind in say Cape Town or Alexandria versus São Tomé.

 

 

[dmwnc1959]

1 minute ago, blackwing said:

I disagree.  There are some things that are out of control, like weather and car issues.  But there are plenty of things that ARE within a passenger's control.  Such as gauging whether it is a good idea to take a tour of say, 6 hours roundtrip, when there are only 8 hours on shore.  Booking the dolphin swim at the place 15 minutes from the dock on your own instead of doing it through the cruise line?  Almost certainly safe.  Booking a private tour with a guy who will show you around and there's not a definite itinerary or absolute timeframe?  Risky.

 

I think the thing you keep ignoring in your repeated defense of these passengers is that the lead couple are supposedly very experienced cruisers.  They should have known all of this.  And yet when they made a colossal mistake, they are trying to act like the cruise line did them wrong.

It was a posted earlier someone booking a six hour, round-trip train excursion to Berlin, and that there was no way they weren’t booking it through the cruise line to avoid such an incident. Now, imagine that there had been a train derailment, or some factor that delayed a train full of people getting back to the ship. And wasn’t there relatively safe boat excursion in the Bahamas recently when it sank out from underneath them? Good thing it was close by. 

[dmwnc1959]

8 minutes ago, Kortehgehn said:

I must have missed this... I wasn't aware that NCL was reimbursing any of the passengers costs in this situation.

It’s been reported by several news outlets today. 

[srz948]

55 minutes ago, dmwnc1959 said:

Yes, a six-hour roundtrip train ride through Germany and a 7-square mile island off of the coast of Africa are exactly the same. 

So at any point they couldn't have been very far from the ship. Knowing the risks they could have left the tour, taken a cab or walked back to the boat to make it on time. There's more to this story.

[DCGuy64]

3 minutes ago, blackwing said:

The difference is that if this was a NCL sponsored excursion, then the ship would do everything in its power to wait.  And on the off chance that the ship absolutely couldn't wait, then it is on NCL to make sure they pay for all expenses to get the people to the next port.

 

These passengers who stranded themselves are almost certainly looking for full reimbursement of their costs, and I think they deserve zero.

100% agree. Typically entitled, "I'm the victim," 0% responsibility passengers. NCL did nothing wrong and I hope those people get zilch.

[cltnccruisers]

21 minutes ago, graphicguy said:

There's a reason those NCL excursions cost more.  NCL gets their cut.  But, they also get tour operators who LOVE to have a steady and reliable stream of business like partnering with a cruise ship.  So, it behooves them to perform well for them (and ultimately, the guests).

 

As an aside, I know if I add my Latitudes discount and the $50 excursion credit via FAS, the NCL excursions are not a bad deal at all.

We do most of our cruising in the Caribbean and know the islands well enough that we usually just wander on our own.  When we do decide to do an excursion, it's through the ship and mostly covered by OBC.  We've done Europe and the Med a few times and always do ship excursions there.