A curious failure to communicate?

[Travelling2Some]

We had a great cruise on the Viva earlier this month.  Loved the ship, nothing negative to say.  However, we did have an unexplained itinerary change.  We were fine with the change but the stonewalling and refusal to give a reason was very curious in this case since the problem was understandable and absolutely NOT NCL's fault.  NCL actually did a great job in that a nearby port was quickly substituted and many of the original shore excursions were made available from the new port. 

 

Okay, but what I don't get is why they did not simply tell passengers that the switch was due to a dock worker's strike in the original port of Marseilles.  Why be secretive and have many customers annoyed at the cruise line?  Surely the Captain and Miami knew the reason.  Do they not inform the hapless people at the customer service desk?  The tour guides and other shore-side vendors knew all about it.  I wonder why NCL did not simply inform us that there was a strike, since that is clearly beyond their control.  It just seems weird.

[ChiefMateJRK]

Based upon the way that some cruisers lose their minds when there is an itinerary change, I don't blame NCL a bit for playing it close to the vest.

[dexddd]

Maybe they haven't seen 'Cool Hand Luke'.

[cruiseny4life]

NCL prefers obfuscation and partial truths. It's the only way I can explain most of their corporate communications.

[Capitan Obvious]

1 hour ago, cruiseny4life said:

NCL prefers obfuscation and partial truths. It's the only way I can explain most of their corporate communications.

 

That says far more about your inability to explain than it does their ability to communicate.

 

What people rush past on their way to judgment land is "need to know". NCL decides to change from Port A to Port B. The people making that decision know "why". They will tell the Captain to take the ship to Port B instead of Port A. The Captain just does it...he doesn't sit there asking "but, why?". He doesn't care why. He just need to take the ship where he is supposed to. Same with the booking agents manning the 800 number...they don't need to know "why" to do their job...and arguing with them, browbeating them, and give me you supervior-ing them isn't going to change that. Yet, time and time again we see people on this forum running around asking "why", "why", "why" like little children.

[complawyer]

while people may have an extremely legitimate reason to ask why a particular port was changed (last year we missed out on berlin and edinburgh) the explanation was "rough seas. couldnt dock)

 

even with an explanation, it wouldnt alter the fact  the port  has been changed or cancelled in it's entirety. unless it was a specific port someone wanted to see, the best you can do is get po'd and or very disappointed. ncl's paperwork cover's their tushies, and clearly states these changes can be made for any reason. 

 

so, rather than have it ruin the entire cruise for you, roll with the punches. as wise old man once said " it's much better to be po'd than p'd on"

[cruiseny4life]

16 hours ago, complawyer said:

while people may have an extremely legitimate reason to ask why a particular port was changed (last year we missed out on berlin and edinburgh) the explanation was "rough seas. couldnt dock)

 

even with an explanation, it wouldnt alter the fact  the port  has been changed or cancelled in it's entirety. unless it was a specific port someone wanted to see, the best you can do is get po'd and or very disappointed. ncl's paperwork cover's their tushies, and clearly states these changes can be made for any reason. 

 

so, rather than have it ruin the entire cruise for you, roll with the punches. as wise old man once said " it's much better to be po'd than p'd on"

Oh, I agree it doesn't change the outcome. To continue with your analogy, it's just p!$$ poor communications. Why not just say, "hey workers are striking. we're unable to dock." It takes any sort of blame customers assign to NCL (I'm sure some entitled fool would still blame NCL) and puts it squarely on those causing the port to be canceled. The truth will, after all, set you free! 🐕

 

And now, the song stuck in my head is NCL's freestyle song! 

 

 

[Travelling2Some]

7 hours ago, cruiseny4life said:

Oh, I agree it doesn't change the outcome. To continue with your analogy, it's just p!$$ poor communications. Why not just say, "hey workers are striking. we're unable to dock." It takes any sort of blame customers assign to NCL (I'm sure some entitled fool would still blame NCL) and puts it squarely on those causing the port to be canceled. The truth will, after all, set you free! 🐕

 

And now, the song stuck in my head is NCL's freestyle song! 

 

And THAT was exactly my point.  My post was NOT asking why the itinerary change but rather why NCL would want to obscure the reason and have many passengers blame the cruise line rather than the dockworkers' strike.  Just seemed like needlessly bad P.R. 

 

[BirdTravels]

On 6/17/2024 at 5:43 PM, Travelling2Some said:

Okay, but what I don't get is why they did not simply tell passengers that the switch was due to a dock worker's strike in the original port of Marseilles.  

Maybe because "saying it out loud" would screw some passengers who want to file an insurance claim for the missed port???

[Wayward Son]

On 6/19/2024 at 4:19 PM, BirdTravels said:

Maybe because "saying it out loud" would screw some passengers who want to file an insurance claim for the missed port???

 

Well that came out of nowhere.

 

How many NCL cruisers have insurance for missed ports? 10 out of 4000? C'mon man, I've seen you do way better than that.

 

[CruiseMH]

On 6/18/2024 at 10:32 PM, complawyer said:

it wouldnt alter the fact  the port  has been changed or cancelled in it's entirety.

 

It wouldn`t alter the fact but it would make things much more easy for the crew. Cause if there is a reason which is beyond NCL`s control and can be easily researched/rechecked via the internet then this will calm down 90% of the passengers. So there is way less frustrationand distrust.

 

On 6/18/2024 at 7:39 PM, Capitan Obvious said:

 

The Captain just does it...he doesn't sit there asking "but, why?". He doesn't care why. He just need to take the ship where he is supposed to.

 

If the captain really doesn`t care then he should stop working on cruise ships immediately !

It is the responsibility of a captain to give the best possible service to the guests. We are not talking about a simple transport equipment like a bus or a plane where i pay to get from A to B.

It should be the minimum level of service to inform the passengers why they had to change the port.

 

[Menocchio]

It's communications discipline. If you say something only when you have a good explanation, then everyone knows that when you stay silent that means you don't have an acceptable explanation. And it's easier to control your employees with a very broad directive like "say nothing" than trust them to dispassionately dispensed nuanced information. Maybe it'd be okay to say there's a strike at the port, but it wouldn't be okay if the captain then followed that up with his opinions on labor relations. And much better to say nothing that to say something that could open up legal liabilities. 

 

It's probably not a policy that best respects customers or employees, but it is a rational one. 

[Wayward Son]

10 hours ago, CruiseMH said:

It is the responsibility of a captain to give the best possible service to the guests.

 

This doesn't sound right.

 

[DominicAUS]

No matter what they say not everyone wupp

be happy. Advising there’s a strike, you’ll get people saying there isn’t a strike etc. 

 

I’m pretty sure they don’t change the port for the fun it, with the additional work to get another port secured and excursions booked. Is it disappointing of course but part of cruising and travelling 

[julig22]

54 minutes ago, DominicAUS said:

No matter what they say not everyone wupp

be happy. Advising there’s a strike, you’ll get people saying there isn’t a strike etc. 

 

I’m pretty sure they don’t change the port for the fun it, with the additional work to get another port secured and excursions booked. Is it disappointing of course but part of cruising and travelling 

We had to miss Stanley when I went to Antarctica last year. Those with NCL excursions were actually in the theater waiting for the tenders when the captain announced the tenders couldn't make it because of weather.

And people with private excursions said it wasn't true because their excursion folks told them that the weather was OK, ship shouldn't have cancelled.  In reality, it might have been possible to get ashore at the time but then what happens when the approaching storm hits and you have 2000 people who can't get BACK to the ship in the afternoon???

[CruiseMH]

1 hour ago, julig22 said:

 

And people with private excursions said it wasn't true because their excursion folks told them that the weather was OK, ship shouldn't have cancelled.

 

The private excursion guys don`t have the same detailed weather data and forecast as the captain.They can just judge based on their eyes. But "looks good" does not automatically mean that it is safe to operate the tender boats. And the private excursion guys also don`t have the responsibility for over 2000 guests. If something happens during tender operations and someone gets injured the same people are the first who are shouting "why did they operate the tenders when it is not safe?"

 

In such cases i do trust the captain 50 times more than any excursion operator.

 

 

[cruiseny4life]

On 6/22/2024 at 5:45 PM, Wayward Son said:

 

This doesn't sound right.

 

Based on your posting history, I know you probably are serious...but you can't possibly be serious. The cruise industry is a hospitality industry. Profit first. Safety second. Guest satisfaction (should be, but isn't) third, due to the first one. The second one doesn't have to impact guest satisfaction. 

 

This is why I always whine about captain's not smiling in their official portraits. At least give the optics you care...but many prefer power poses. 

Edited Monday at 04:39 PM by cruiseny4life

[pghflyer]

NCL is definitely much less transparent than other transportation companies (ex. when is the last time United rerouted you from Chicago to Detroit but gave you NO reason for landing in an unplanned airport?) and the average cruise line, but they have no legal obligation to be more forthcoming. Just wished this voluntary aspect of customer relations was better.

[luv2kroooz]

1 minute ago, pghflyer said:

NCL is definitely much less transparent than other transportation companies (ex. when is the last time United rerouted you from Chicago to Detroit but gave you NO reason for landing in an unplanned airport?) and the average cruise line, but they have no legal obligation to be more forthcoming. Just wished this voluntary aspect of customer relations was better.

Great point. It can be good to go above and beyond from time to time, instead of doing what is required and nothing more.

[ontheweb]

1 hour ago, pghflyer said:

NCL is definitely much less transparent than other transportation companies (ex. when is the last time United rerouted you from Chicago to Detroit but gave you NO reason for landing in an unplanned airport?) and the average cruise line, but they have no legal obligation to be more forthcoming. Just wished this voluntary aspect of customer relations was better.

I don't remember the ariline as it was several years ago (and not booked through a cruise line), but they changed our flight from direct to Fort Lauderdale to having a stop in Dallas. And the best we could have done is wave goodbye to our cruise. There was NO explanation.

 

Bit of a hassle, but I was able to cancel, get a refund, and book with a different airline.

[Capitan Obvious]

On 6/22/2024 at 7:32 AM, CruiseMH said:

If the captain really doesn`t care then he should stop working on cruise ships immediately !

 

Disagree. The captain cares about his job, he doesn't care about the "why" behind the decisions of his employer...nor does he argue them. The captain doesn't care "why" the ship was routed to a port to start with, and the captain doesn't care "why" that port was later changed to another. All the captain cares about is knowing where he has to go so that he can get there as safely as possible.

 

On 6/22/2024 at 7:32 AM, CruiseMH said:

It is the responsibility of a captain to give the best possible service to the guests.

 

Not at all, that is the responsibility of the General Manager and his/her staff. The responsibilities of the captain are different.

[luv2kroooz]

1 hour ago, Capitan Obvious said:

 

Disagree. The captain cares about his job, he doesn't care about the "why" behind the decisions of his employer...nor does he argue them. The captain doesn't care "why" the ship was routed to a port to start with, and the captain doesn't care "why" that port was later changed to another. All the captain cares about is knowing where he has to go so that he can get there as safely as possible.

 

 

Not at all, that is the responsibility of the General Manager and his/her staff. The responsibilities of the captain are different.

The Master has the overall responsibility for everything that happens onboard his/her ship. Granted, there are team members that assist him/her in fulfilling and carrying out those duties, but at the end of the day, it rests solely on the shoulders of the Master. It is an amazing responsibility when you stop and think about.

[Capitan Obvious]

4 minutes ago, luv2kroooz said:

The Master has the overall responsibility for everything that happens onboard his/her ship. Granted, there are team members that assist him/her in fulfilling and carrying out those duties, but at the end of the day, it rests solely on the shoulders of the Master. It is an amazing responsibility when you stop and think about.

 

Right, but the point was (and still is) that the captain does their job without being overly concerned with the "why" behind decisions. The captain care about where the ship has to go, the captain is not calling NCLH asking "why" they have to go there.

[luv2kroooz]

16 minutes ago, Capitan Obvious said:

 

Right, but the point was (and still is) that the captain does their job without being overly concerned with the "why" behind decisions. The captain care about where the ship has to go, the captain is not calling NCLH asking "why" they have to go there.

I don't have direct knowledge about how each Captain chooses to operate his or her ship, so I'll just leave it there.

[CruiseMH]

3 hours ago, Capitan Obvious said:

 

Disagree. The captain cares about his job, he doesn't care about the "why" behind the decisions of his employer...nor does he argue them. The captain doesn't care "why" the ship was routed to a port to start with, and the captain doesn't care "why" that port was later changed to another. All the captain cares about is knowing where he has to go so that he can get there as safely as possible.

 

 

The captain is responsible for the safety and security of the ship and its crew.

The more detailed explanation he gives to the guests why what happens the more satisfied the guests are and the lower the risk of any sort of riot is.

If he just says "we are going to port A instead of port B" without any explanation the rumors will spread and the guests might become angry and the crew are the first to get confronted with these passengers.

There might be situations where the real reason would be too complicated or difficult to explain to the guests.But in the case of OP it was a strike ! Something that every guest can recheck via the internet within 2 minutes.

So why risk to have angry passengers when you easily can avoid it ?