Has anyone had success with a refund from NCL?

[Never cruise with NCL]

Interesting that so many cruisers wouldn't see the other side of things.  It's not like me missed the cruise because we didn't show up. We could not board the ship because it did not arrive at the port. How many of you work for the cruise company? Let's review some things you might not be considering. 

1. We made arrangements with the embarkation manager to disembark and re-embark in Akureyri, and these arrangements were confirmed and approved by NCL staff. This approval should imply that NCL acknowledged and accepted responsibility to ensure our re-embarkation.

2. A reasonable expectation since NCL staff agreed to our plan, we had a reasonable expectation that NCL would fulfill its part of the agreement and ensure the ship would dock as planned. At least contact us if there are going to be changes to the itinerary.

3. NCL failed to provide timely communication about the itinerary change. Even if you believe we took a chance, the responsibility to inform us of any itinerary changes promptly falls on them. If we had been notified in advance, we could have had the opportunity to board the ship.

4. As a passenger, we were under the assumption that NCL would exercise a duty of care. Their failure to communicate changes in a timely manner, which led to our missing the ship, breaches this duty.

5. Other ships, such as the Spirit of Adventure and Viking Mars, successfully docked at the same ports on the relevant dates, which further suggests that NCL's failure to dock was not entirely due to uncontrollable circumstances.

6. NCL has an obligation to ensure the safety and well-being of its passengers. By leaving us stranded without providing any assistance, they failed to uphold this obligation. It is unreasonable for the blame on us when NCL did not fulfill their duty to communicate and protect their passengers. It doesn't matter the number of passengers. They still shouldn't be given a pass. 

7. It is ethically unjustifiable for NCL to blame a passenger for actions taken with their prior approval, particularly when the passenger was left in a vulnerable and dangerous situation due to the cruise line’s failure to communicate effectively.

8. Passengers have the right to rely on the professionalism and reliability of the cruise line. You shouldn’t need insurance to cover the cruise line’s failure to fulfill its duties, especially when the failure is due to factors within NCL’s control.

9. Travel insurance is an optional purchase, not a legal requirement. The decision not to purchase it does not diminish the cruise line's responsibility to provide the service that was paid for. Insurance is meant to cover unforeseen and unavoidable events, not to excuse a cruise line’s avoidable errors or failures to communicate.

10. Even if we had insurance, it might not have covered the full scope of our losses. Travel insurance policies often have exclusions, limitations, and deductibles, and they may not cover situations where the cruise line fails to fulfill its basic contractual obligations.

 

I could continue these points but I guess you will either protect and back the cruise ship companies and service for all of us will get worse over time, or we stick together and demand simple reasonable services.  Services such as a text message of an itinerary change ahead of time, a call or message if the ship knows they are going to leave a passenger in another country, or at minimum, a refund for the unused cruise if the ship doesn't come to port. Trust me, our expenses are much greater than a missed cruise at this point.  We are all cruisers on this site. We should hold them accountable! As far as the weather, the links are just to the NCL report. That's not what the actual weather was per https://ocean.weather.gov/

[Asawi]

@Never cruise with NCL I think you need to revisit your agreement with NCL. I have never done anything like this but I would, like I said before, be surprised if it didn't state that YOU had the sole responsibility to keep yourself updated and that they did not make any guarantee except allowing you to board. I could be wrong, but big companies like NCL usually know how to cover themselves.

I agree that it would have been appropriate for them to try to get hold of you. But I seriously doubt they they were in any way obliged to. Did YOU make any attempts to confirm arrangements before second leg embarkation in Reykjvik? I don't know if it would have mattered (Depends on when the itinerary change was decided), but when making special arrangements it's always a good idea to get extra confirmation. Especially when cruising because there is ALWAYS a risk of having ports cancelled and itineraries changed. ALWAYS! 

I absolutely do not work for NCL, nor do I believe that the other respnders do. I do not applaude NCL's every action. But I do not think they actually owe you anything. I DO think they should, as a goodwill gesture, offer you a substancial (more than 10%)  FCC. But that's it.

Sorry!

(And by the way, your point 6... At the moment you stepped off the ship in Akureyri you were no longer an NCL passenger and they were no longer in any way responsible for your safety or wellbeing. And FWIW, you were in a very nice and safe Icelandic town... Once again, sorry!)

[Andi Land]

5 hours ago, Never cruise with NCL said:

Interesting that so many cruisers wouldn't see the other side of things.  It's not like me missed the cruise because we didn't show up. We could not board the ship because it did not arrive at the port. How many of you work for the cruise company? Let's review some things you might not be considering. 

1. We made arrangements with the embarkation manager to disembark and re-embark in Akureyri, and these arrangements were confirmed and approved by NCL staff. This approval should imply that NCL acknowledged and accepted responsibility to ensure our re-embarkation.

2. A reasonable expectation since NCL staff agreed to our plan, we had a reasonable expectation that NCL would fulfill its part of the agreement and ensure the ship would dock as planned. At least contact us if there are going to be changes to the itinerary.

3. NCL failed to provide timely communication about the itinerary change. Even if you believe we took a chance, the responsibility to inform us of any itinerary changes promptly falls on them. If we had been notified in advance, we could have had the opportunity to board the ship.

4. As a passenger, we were under the assumption that NCL would exercise a duty of care. Their failure to communicate changes in a timely manner, which led to our missing the ship, breaches this duty.

5. Other ships, such as the Spirit of Adventure and Viking Mars, successfully docked at the same ports on the relevant dates, which further suggests that NCL's failure to dock was not entirely due to uncontrollable circumstances.

6. NCL has an obligation to ensure the safety and well-being of its passengers. By leaving us stranded without providing any assistance, they failed to uphold this obligation. It is unreasonable for the blame on us when NCL did not fulfill their duty to communicate and protect their passengers. It doesn't matter the number of passengers. They still shouldn't be given a pass. 

7. It is ethically unjustifiable for NCL to blame a passenger for actions taken with their prior approval, particularly when the passenger was left in a vulnerable and dangerous situation due to the cruise line’s failure to communicate effectively.

8. Passengers have the right to rely on the professionalism and reliability of the cruise line. You shouldn’t need insurance to cover the cruise line’s failure to fulfill its duties, especially when the failure is due to factors within NCL’s control.

9. Travel insurance is an optional purchase, not a legal requirement. The decision not to purchase it does not diminish the cruise line's responsibility to provide the service that was paid for. Insurance is meant to cover unforeseen and unavoidable events, not to excuse a cruise line’s avoidable errors or failures to communicate.

10. Even if we had insurance, it might not have covered the full scope of our losses. Travel insurance policies often have exclusions, limitations, and deductibles, and they may not cover situations where the cruise line fails to fulfill its basic contractual obligations.

 

I could continue these points but I guess you will either protect and back the cruise ship companies and service for all of us will get worse over time, or we stick together and demand simple reasonable services.  Services such as a text message of an itinerary change ahead of time, a call or message if the ship knows they are going to leave a passenger in another country, or at minimum, a refund for the unused cruise if the ship doesn't come to port. Trust me, our expenses are much greater than a missed cruise at this point.  We are all cruisers on this site. We should hold them accountable! As far as the weather, the links are just to the NCL report. That's not what the actual weather was per https://ocean.weather.gov/

I’ll be direct and to the point, you are in the wrong in this situation. If you wanted a land vacation, you should have taken a land vacation. The cruise contract is very clear and you agreed to the terms of the cruise. Anytime you do a deviation, you become solely responsible. I’ve done one; I understood the terms I signed up for.  
 

Travel insurance would have covered you missing the second cruise. You missed it. The cruise line didn’t leave you behind. Insurance is cheap especially if you are making changes to the itinerary to fit your needs. Even with that knowledge you should ask these kinds of questions up front. You found Cruise Critic to lodge a complaint. It was here beforehand and you could have done your research. 
 

If you really feel like they owe you something (they don’t; this is all on you), then take it to the actual media. That seems to be the only thing that gets their attention. No one here can help you get back money to which you’re not entitled. 

[mjkacmom]

6 hours ago, Never cruise with NCL said:

Interesting that so many cruisers wouldn't see the other side of things.  It's not like me missed the cruise because we didn't show up. We could not board the ship because it did not arrive at the port. How many of you work for the cruise company? Let's review some things you might not be considering. 

1. We made arrangements with the embarkation manager to disembark and re-embark in Akureyri, and these arrangements were confirmed and approved by NCL staff. This approval should imply that NCL acknowledged and accepted responsibility to ensure our re-embarkation.

2. A reasonable expectation since NCL staff agreed to our plan, we had a reasonable expectation that NCL would fulfill its part of the agreement and ensure the ship would dock as planned. At least contact us if there are going to be changes to the itinerary.

3. NCL failed to provide timely communication about the itinerary change. Even if you believe we took a chance, the responsibility to inform us of any itinerary changes promptly falls on them. If we had been notified in advance, we could have had the opportunity to board the ship.

4. As a passenger, we were under the assumption that NCL would exercise a duty of care. Their failure to communicate changes in a timely manner, which led to our missing the ship, breaches this duty.

5. Other ships, such as the Spirit of Adventure and Viking Mars, successfully docked at the same ports on the relevant dates, which further suggests that NCL's failure to dock was not entirely due to uncontrollable circumstances.

6. NCL has an obligation to ensure the safety and well-being of its passengers. By leaving us stranded without providing any assistance, they failed to uphold this obligation. It is unreasonable for the blame on us when NCL did not fulfill their duty to communicate and protect their passengers. It doesn't matter the number of passengers. They still shouldn't be given a pass. 

7. It is ethically unjustifiable for NCL to blame a passenger for actions taken with their prior approval, particularly when the passenger was left in a vulnerable and dangerous situation due to the cruise line’s failure to communicate effectively.

8. Passengers have the right to rely on the professionalism and reliability of the cruise line. You shouldn’t need insurance to cover the cruise line’s failure to fulfill its duties, especially when the failure is due to factors within NCL’s control.

9. Travel insurance is an optional purchase, not a legal requirement. The decision not to purchase it does not diminish the cruise line's responsibility to provide the service that was paid for. Insurance is meant to cover unforeseen and unavoidable events, not to excuse a cruise line’s avoidable errors or failures to communicate.

10. Even if we had insurance, it might not have covered the full scope of our losses. Travel insurance policies often have exclusions, limitations, and deductibles, and they may not cover situations where the cruise line fails to fulfill its basic contractual obligations.

 

I could continue these points but I guess you will either protect and back the cruise ship companies and service for all of us will get worse over time, or we stick together and demand simple reasonable services.  Services such as a text message of an itinerary change ahead of time, a call or message if the ship knows they are going to leave a passenger in another country, or at minimum, a refund for the unused cruise if the ship doesn't come to port. Trust me, our expenses are much greater than a missed cruise at this point.  We are all cruisers on this site. We should hold them accountable! As far as the weather, the links are just to the NCL report. That's not what the actual weather was per https://ocean.weather.gov/

Was this your first cruise? 

[drew69]

6 hours ago, Never cruise with NCL said:

Interesting that so many cruisers wouldn't see the other side of things.  It's not like me missed the cruise because we didn't show up. We could not board the ship because it did not arrive at the port. How many of you work for the cruise company? Let's review some things you might not be considering. 

1. We made arrangements with the embarkation manager to disembark and re-embark in Akureyri, and these arrangements were confirmed and approved by NCL staff. This approval should imply that NCL acknowledged and accepted responsibility to ensure our re-embarkation.

2. A reasonable expectation since NCL staff agreed to our plan, we had a reasonable expectation that NCL would fulfill its part of the agreement and ensure the ship would dock as planned. At least contact us if there are going to be changes to the itinerary.

3. NCL failed to provide timely communication about the itinerary change. Even if you believe we took a chance, the responsibility to inform us of any itinerary changes promptly falls on them. If we had been notified in advance, we could have had the opportunity to board the ship.

4. As a passenger, we were under the assumption that NCL would exercise a duty of care. Their failure to communicate changes in a timely manner, which led to our missing the ship, breaches this duty.

5. Other ships, such as the Spirit of Adventure and Viking Mars, successfully docked at the same ports on the relevant dates, which further suggests that NCL's failure to dock was not entirely due to uncontrollable circumstances.

6. NCL has an obligation to ensure the safety and well-being of its passengers. By leaving us stranded without providing any assistance, they failed to uphold this obligation. It is unreasonable for the blame on us when NCL did not fulfill their duty to communicate and protect their passengers. It doesn't matter the number of passengers. They still shouldn't be given a pass. 

7. It is ethically unjustifiable for NCL to blame a passenger for actions taken with their prior approval, particularly when the passenger was left in a vulnerable and dangerous situation due to the cruise line’s failure to communicate effectively.

8. Passengers have the right to rely on the professionalism and reliability of the cruise line. You shouldn’t need insurance to cover the cruise line’s failure to fulfill its duties, especially when the failure is due to factors within NCL’s control.

9. Travel insurance is an optional purchase, not a legal requirement. The decision not to purchase it does not diminish the cruise line's responsibility to provide the service that was paid for. Insurance is meant to cover unforeseen and unavoidable events, not to excuse a cruise line’s avoidable errors or failures to communicate.

10. Even if we had insurance, it might not have covered the full scope of our losses. Travel insurance policies often have exclusions, limitations, and deductibles, and they may not cover situations where the cruise line fails to fulfill its basic contractual obligations.

 

I could continue these points but I guess you will either protect and back the cruise ship companies and service for all of us will get worse over time, or we stick together and demand simple reasonable services.  Services such as a text message of an itinerary change ahead of time, a call or message if the ship knows they are going to leave a passenger in another country, or at minimum, a refund for the unused cruise if the ship doesn't come to port. Trust me, our expenses are much greater than a missed cruise at this point.  We are all cruisers on this site. We should hold them accountable! As far as the weather, the links are just to the NCL report. That's not what the actual weather was per https://ocean.weather.gov/

I am sure NCL let the passengers know about the itinerary change.  You chose to not be on the ship which is why you were not notified.  It is not their job to track you down.

You chose to disembark and planned to embark in a port that was not the disembarkation nor embarkation port. 

You took a chance and any consequences are on you.  A cruise is a trip on the ship from embarkation to disembarkation - it is not a ferry service to complement your land vacation.

They do not owe you anything.

 

 

 

[Asawi]

5 hours ago, Never cruise with NCL said:

 particularly when the passenger was left in a vulnerable and dangerous situation

Me again!
I'm sorry, but this bit really bugs me! Kind of drama queen vibes.Vulnerable I can maybe accept, since missing the ship surely must have shaken them up. But DANGEROUS??? Come on!
They were in Akureyri, Iceland! A nice town in an extremely civilized country with a couple of buses and a few flights every day to Reykjvik and daily flights to NY from there. Maybe costly, but not complicated. 

 

And there is also

6 hours ago, Never cruise with NCL said:

Other ships, such as the Spirit of Adventure and Viking Mars, successfully docked at the same ports on the relevant dates, which further suggests that NCL's failure to dock was not entirely due to uncontrollable circumstances.

Were this ships also going to Greenland? If not, they were not about to come across the same weather systems as the NCL ship.

 

6 hours ago, Never cruise with NCL said:

Even if we had insurance, it might not have covered the full scope of our losses. Travel insurance policies often have exclusions, limitations, and deductibles, and they may not cover situations where the cruise line fails to fulfill its basic contractual obligations.

 

Now insurance I do know a little bit about (at least how it works in my part of the world), and if you had had insurance and they would have thought you were not to blame they would be likely to pay out. If they then thought NCL was to blame the insurance company would take NCL on to get them to reimburse them (the insurance company). If on the other hand they would have though you were to blame, well then of course it would have been different.

 

I really don't want to pile things up (even though that is exactly what I'm doing... go figure...), but it bugs me when people cannot own up to having made a bad call. I repeat: I do believe that all NCL promised was to ALLOW you to not board the ship at the original embarkation port and instead ALLOW you to board in Akureyri. They agreed to ALLOW this. Not to GUARANTEE this. I'm guessing they were not happy to do this, but still ALLOWED it. Read the terms of your agreement! All of it! Fine print, disclaimers, all of it! And see if indeed NCL had any "contractual obligations" towards you. What's in writing is what's counts, not what's in your head or heart.

[graphicguy]

Lots to digest here.  Quick questions......

 

-OP, you mention the "Embarkation Manager".  Not saying there isn't one, but in all my cruises (not just NCL), I've never encountered this person.  Where did you communicate with this person?  Was their official title "Embarkation Manager"?  I'm just trying to nail down who it was that instructed you that your plan was "approved".

 

No one can force you to embark or disembark the ship.  That's up to you.  So, getting "approval" isn't really a "thing".  It's up to you to embark the ship at the embarkation port before "all aboard" time.  Getting to the  cruise ship embarkation port at the start of the cruise is your responsibility.  Cruise lines many times do offer transport from airports to the cruise port for boarding but you made no mention of having those arrangements.

 

You state you disembarked early on the 1st cruise.  At that juncture you are not a passenger. It's not clear to me when you wanted to board the 2nd cruise, but will assume it wasn't at the origination point and you wanted to reboard at one of the ports in between.  Those are always subject to change.  As such, they do have a responsibility for the reasonable care and safety of their passengers.  But, you weren't a passenger when you missed the ship. 

 

If you had made the original embarkation port on the 2nd cruise, you would have been on the ship as a passenger when they communicated the itinerary change.  But, you missed the ship.  Again, you were no longer a passenger at that point.  The itinerary was communicated to the passengers.  You weren't on the ship for those communications.  

 

I do agree with you that insurance may not have covered you missing the 2nd cruise.  Two separate cruises....you left the first one early, and tried to embark on the 2nd one late.  That's a recipe for disaster.

 

I do wish you luck.  Hard to see "your side of things" (as you put it) on this.  You put yourself in a "vulnerable and dangerous" (again, your words) situation.

 

Tough to see any support coming your way.  Also tough to see any compensation coming your way from the cruise line, either.

 

Consider it a lesson learned, albeit an expensive one.

 

[Ellis1138]

I also don't work for any cruise company and I am always sailing on a tight budget. I'm very sorry this happened to you and I know how it is when a vacation doesn't go as expected. And if there's one thing I know about cruising it's that no port is guaranteed. I had my fingers crossed the whole time on the Prima, hoping we would get to do Geiranger and I actually had it planned to miss Isafjordur, since it missed it all 2023.

 

I'm not excusing NCL for what happened to you. In fact, I think whoever this "embarkation manager" was who told you could get off at Akureyri and get back on there was in the wrong. They should not have allowed you to think it was guaranteed. 

 

If this happened to me, I would complain to NCL, giving them the name of the NCL employee who told you that you could rejoin the ship at Akureyri without telling you that the ship could skip that port. But as I mentioned before, they won't refund you, but might give you goodwill FCC because one of their employees led you astray.

[drew69]

22 minutes ago, Ellis1138 said:

I also don't work for any cruise company and I am always sailing on a tight budget. I'm very sorry this happened to you and I know how it is when a vacation doesn't go as expected. And if there's one thing I know about cruising it's that no port is guaranteed. I had my fingers crossed the whole time on the Prima, hoping we would get to do Geiranger and I actually had it planned to miss Isafjordur, since it missed it all 2023.

 

I'm not excusing NCL for what happened to you. In fact, I think whoever this "embarkation manager" was who told you could get off at Akureyri and get back on there was in the wrong. They should not have allowed you to think it was guaranteed. 

 

If this happened to me, I would complain to NCL, giving them the name of the NCL employee who told you that you could rejoin the ship at Akureyri without telling you that the ship could skip that port. But as I mentioned before, they won't refund you, but might give you goodwill FCC because one of their employees led you astray.

I don't see any employee leaving them astray.  "We received approval from NCL to disembark early during the first leg and reboard on the second leg in Akureyri, Iceland."

Approval means you CAN do it, it does not mean you SHOULD do it nor does it imply any guarantees.  

Common sense and the terms and conditions tell you that a ship could miss any port at anytime.  No one should have to tell you this.  

 

All too often, there are posts here with inflammatory titles that then proceed to tell a tale which only highlights the poor judgement of the person posting  who is now looking for sympathy and someone else to blame for their mistakes - and all too often for compensation they do not deserve.

 

They then get angry when everyone tries to give them logic and facts instead of saying "poor you, that nasty company owes you something."

[yakcruiser]

I can see a corporate directive going out not allowing passengers to get off the ship and reboard at a later date. Future problems solved.

[Middleager]

OP is in the wrong.  OP doesn't understand and tries to argue and look for tips to get some compensation from NCL.  NCL owes NOTHING to the OP.

 

Best thing for the OP is to move on, rather than continuing to argue and make a fool of him/herself.

[Panhandle Couple]

8 hours ago, Never cruise with NCL said:

Interesting that so many cruisers wouldn't see the other side of things.  It's not like me missed the cruise because we didn't show up. We could not board the ship because it did not arrive at the port. How many of you work for the cruise company? Let's review some things you might not be considering. 

1. We made arrangements with the embarkation manager to disembark and re-embark in Akureyri, and these arrangements were confirmed and approved by NCL staff. This approval should imply that NCL acknowledged and accepted responsibility to ensure our re-embarkation.

2. A reasonable expectation since NCL staff agreed to our plan, we had a reasonable expectation that NCL would fulfill its part of the agreement and ensure the ship would dock as planned. At least contact us if there are going to be changes to the itinerary.

3. NCL failed to provide timely communication about the itinerary change. Even if you believe we took a chance, the responsibility to inform us of any itinerary changes promptly falls on them. If we had been notified in advance, we could have had the opportunity to board the ship.

4. As a passenger, we were under the assumption that NCL would exercise a duty of care. Their failure to communicate changes in a timely manner, which led to our missing the ship, breaches this duty.

5. Other ships, such as the Spirit of Adventure and Viking Mars, successfully docked at the same ports on the relevant dates, which further suggests that NCL's failure to dock was not entirely due to uncontrollable circumstances.

6. NCL has an obligation to ensure the safety and well-being of its passengers. By leaving us stranded without providing any assistance, they failed to uphold this obligation. It is unreasonable for the blame on us when NCL did not fulfill their duty to communicate and protect their passengers. It doesn't matter the number of passengers. They still shouldn't be given a pass. 

7. It is ethically unjustifiable for NCL to blame a passenger for actions taken with their prior approval, particularly when the passenger was left in a vulnerable and dangerous situation due to the cruise line’s failure to communicate effectively.

8. Passengers have the right to rely on the professionalism and reliability of the cruise line. You shouldn’t need insurance to cover the cruise line’s failure to fulfill its duties, especially when the failure is due to factors within NCL’s control.

9. Travel insurance is an optional purchase, not a legal requirement. The decision not to purchase it does not diminish the cruise line's responsibility to provide the service that was paid for. Insurance is meant to cover unforeseen and unavoidable events, not to excuse a cruise line’s avoidable errors or failures to communicate.

10. Even if we had insurance, it might not have covered the full scope of our losses. Travel insurance policies often have exclusions, limitations, and deductibles, and they may not cover situations where the cruise line fails to fulfill its basic contractual obligations.

 

I could continue these points but I guess you will either protect and back the cruise ship companies and service for all of us will get worse over time, or we stick together and demand simple reasonable services.  Services such as a text message of an itinerary change ahead of time, a call or message if the ship knows they are going to leave a passenger in another country, or at minimum, a refund for the unused cruise if the ship doesn't come to port. Trust me, our expenses are much greater than a missed cruise at this point.  We are all cruisers on this site. We should hold them accountable! As far as the weather, the links are just to the NCL report. That's not what the actual weather was per https://ocean.weather.gov/

Try posting on the RCL board under "Never cruise with RCL" and see how many positive responses you get.  Or Princess, or Oceania, etc.  You will not get favorable responses, is my guess.

 

You did what 99.91% of passengers will never do.  Why are you the exception?  Are you that special?

 

NCL had 2,000 other passengers on that ship.  Is it "ethical" that they keep the original itinerary just for you, then forcing everyone to sail through 20-30 ft waves?  This would force them to close most of the outdoor spaces and have many people seasick.  Do you think several hundred seasick people would be OK with their condition for 2 days, just for the sake of picking up 1 extra set of passengers?  Also, it is possible you would also be seasick, have you thought of that?  Would you then be here complaining that NCL should have known better than sail in extra rough seas?  (As a side note, the North Atlantic is known for rough seas, anyone cruising there should be aware of that beforehand)

 

We have been on BA/BA+ ships (much larger) with 15-17 ft waves.  It doesn't bother us, but larger waves on a smaller ship will impact many people, possibly some of the crew.

 

Some of what you say is true, but from NCL's perspective it was their duty to protect and provide the best cruise they can for the OTHER 2,000 PEOPLE, not someone who wants to bend all of their rules.

 

[hallux]

29 minutes ago, Panhandle Couple said:

but from NCL's perspective it was their duty to protect and provide the best cruise they can for the OTHER 2,000 PEOPLE, not someone who wants to bend all of their rules.

This part can't be repeated enough!  The health and safety of 2,000 passengers that are not asking for special treatment by asking to leave the ship and rejoin at their leisure is 100% more important than catering to those 2-4 people that asked to have the rules bent for them...

[julig22]

Here's a thought - If you want special notifications, tip your steward or the "Embarkation Manager" ahead of time so that you have someone to contact you and keep you updated on any itinerary changes. Especially if your itinerary includes ports that are frequently missed due to weather or other adverse factors. NCL distributes information to the onboard passengers, does not rely on email.

Curious to know if the OP even knows when the decision(s) were made to skip ports - if they were made at the last minute or well in advance.

 

Interesting that so many cruisers wouldn't see the other side of things. Maybe because there isn't another side. And I don't work for NCL  - or anybody for that matter, been retired for over a decade.

[ChiefMateJRK]

11 hours ago, Never cruise with NCL said:

should imply

 

11 hours ago, Never cruise with NCL said:

reasonable expectation

 

11 hours ago, Never cruise with NCL said:

under the assumption

This is where you lose a lot of us.

 

11 hours ago, Never cruise with NCL said:

NCL has an obligation to ensure the safety and well-being of its passengers.

Once you step off the ship, you're no longer their passenger.

[ChiefMateJRK]

6 hours ago, Andi Land said:

Travel insurance would have covered you missing the second cruise.

Are you sure about that?  Which policy covers you if you simply don't make it to the departure due to your own actions?  I understand if there is a cancelled flight, missed connection or similar, but that's not the case here.

[Andi Land]

21 minutes ago, ChiefMateJRK said:

Are you sure about that?  Which policy covers you if you simply don't make it to the departure due to your own actions?  I understand if there is a cancelled flight, missed connection or similar, but that's not the case here.

You may be right. I generally book through TravelSafe and it has missed connection and cancel for any reason coverage. I’ve used Allianz as well and they worked out for my mom one time due to medical stuff. 
 

The TravelSafe policy covers missed connections but in OPs case it might not since they changed the terms of their original travel by making a deviation. It’s always best to check those things out ahead of time to make sure they are covered or else you basically self insure that things can go wrong. 
 

I tend to be over insured and get a bit irked when people want the same type of coverage I purchase but for free. ☺️
 

[Pauser]

On our very first cruise, there was a couple who boarded with a large happy group. They planned to get married in St. Thomas and had made arrangements through the cruise ship for transport. Everyone was so excited! Well as luck would have it, high seas prevented us from docking in St. Thomas. We ran into them back at the airport at the end of the cruise. They were absolutely livid and had spent the entire cruise demanding a refund since the cruise line "ruined" their wedding, which the cruise line of course did not. They intended to hire an attorney when they arrived back home. What I learned is never to make important plans that are port-dependent. Ports are skipped pretty often. You have to have a back up and you have to be flexible. Your plan in my opinion was a disaster waiting to happen, dependent on too many variables working out perfectly. Unfortunately, one of those moving parts didn't work as planned. I would still try to negotiate an FCC.

[woodman6703]

19 hours ago, Never cruise with NCL said:

Interesting that so many cruisers wouldn't see the other side of things.  It's not like me missed the cruise because we didn't show up. We could not board the ship because it did not arrive at the port. How many of you work for the cruise company? Let's review some things you might not be considering. 

1. We made arrangements with the embarkation manager to disembark and re-embark in Akureyri, and these arrangements were confirmed and approved by NCL staff. This approval should imply that NCL acknowledged and accepted responsibility to ensure our re-embarkation.

2. A reasonable expectation since NCL staff agreed to our plan, we had a reasonable expectation that NCL would fulfill its part of the agreement and ensure the ship would dock as planned. At least contact us if there are going to be changes to the itinerary.

3. NCL failed to provide timely communication about the itinerary change. Even if you believe we took a chance, the responsibility to inform us of any itinerary changes promptly falls on them. If we had been notified in advance, we could have had the opportunity to board the ship.

4. As a passenger, we were under the assumption that NCL would exercise a duty of care. Their failure to communicate changes in a timely manner, which led to our missing the ship, breaches this duty.

5. Other ships, such as the Spirit of Adventure and Viking Mars, successfully docked at the same ports on the relevant dates, which further suggests that NCL's failure to dock was not entirely due to uncontrollable circumstances.

6. NCL has an obligation to ensure the safety and well-being of its passengers. By leaving us stranded without providing any assistance, they failed to uphold this obligation. It is unreasonable for the blame on us when NCL did not fulfill their duty to communicate and protect their passengers. It doesn't matter the number of passengers. They still shouldn't be given a pass. 

7. It is ethically unjustifiable for NCL to blame a passenger for actions taken with their prior approval, particularly when the passenger was left in a vulnerable and dangerous situation due to the cruise line’s failure to communicate effectively.

8. Passengers have the right to rely on the professionalism and reliability of the cruise line. You shouldn’t need insurance to cover the cruise line’s failure to fulfill its duties, especially when the failure is due to factors within NCL’s control.

9. Travel insurance is an optional purchase, not a legal requirement. The decision not to purchase it does not diminish the cruise line's responsibility to provide the service that was paid for. Insurance is meant to cover unforeseen and unavoidable events, not to excuse a cruise line’s avoidable errors or failures to communicate.

10. Even if we had insurance, it might not have covered the full scope of our losses. Travel insurance policies often have exclusions, limitations, and deductibles, and they may not cover situations where the cruise line fails to fulfill its basic contractual obligations.

 

I could continue these points but I guess you will either protect and back the cruise ship companies and service for all of us will get worse over time, or we stick together and demand simple reasonable services.  Services such as a text message of an itinerary change ahead of time, a call or message if the ship knows they are going to leave a passenger in another country, or at minimum, a refund for the unused cruise if the ship doesn't come to port. Trust me, our expenses are much greater than a missed cruise at this point.  We are all cruisers on this site. We should hold them accountable! As far as the weather, the links are just to the NCL report. That's not what the actual weather was per https://ocean.weather.gov/

Dude sorry but no one‘s taking up for the cruise line. Everyone is just stating facts. It’s time for you to man up and take the responsibility that you screwed up. We all screw up things at times. this one just happened to cost you out of your pocket take that as a lesson learned. take it as a lesson learned I always use travel insurance.

[bortman23]

18 hours ago, Asawi said:

And by the way, your point 6... At the moment you stepped off the ship in Akureyri you were no longer an NCL passenger and they were no longer in any way responsible for your safety or wellbeing. And FWIW, you were in a very nice and safe Icelandic town... Once again, sorry!)

 

Everything in this whole story boils down to this. Once you left the ship you are no longer their responsibility. 

[Asawi]

11 hours ago, ChiefMateJRK said:

 

This is where you lose a lot of us.

 

Yeah... Seems OP "assumed" and "expected" things but never checked what they actually signed up for. 
 

 Like

23 hours ago, Never cruise with NCL said:

This approval should imply that NCL acknowledged and accepted responsibility to ensure our re-embarkation.

Really??? Wow! 

[pghflyer]

I am very sorry for your loss here, I know it is irritating when you think things will work like other things you have done and it doesn't and it costs you dearly. My second cruise I had ever taken I got stuck in a blizzard and the cruise line (Princess) wouldn't give us a penny back (not taxes, port fees, and no future cruise credits) - unlike my hotel and car rental and airline and all my excursions. I didn't have travel insurance because I was young and never had need for it as most other aspects of travel were good at giving refunds/ credits. Hard lesson that cruise lines just do not operate like other travel (spouse still scowls if I even say the name "Princess" ha ha). 

 

Your expectations (as presented) are unfortunately not legally required nor customary for the industry and unlikely to be resolved as you hope (but a well written letter AND evidence of an employee overpromising how your situation would be handled sometimes can work wonders).   

 

The one thing I DO agree with you on is that I wish ALL the cruiselines did better at communicating itinerary changes and early arrivals/ departures once we have started the cruise.  Most announce it over the PA system which is not hearable in many parts of the ship, some drop letters at a room which may be lost or not timely received.  They have our email and phone, so why not communicate in all mediums to make sure everyone got it? IDK.

 

Good luck but I hope you can eventually move on to focusing on your next trip.

[hallux]

2 hours ago, pghflyer said:

They have our email and phone, so why not communicate in all mediums to make sure everyone got it?

Better than that, since many lock their phone in the safe for the duration - something given to you by your waiter at dinner or as you enter the buffet the day prior.  MOST people eat dinner, it's the best place to 'catch' someone if you have to get a message to them.

[schnapperin]

It’s always a risk to join a cruise at a later port, as mention there is never a guarantee a ship can dock or even more difficult use the tender boats. 
 

iceland is one I would never even think of trying, too many changes of high wind and storms everytime of the year

[graphicguy]

1 hour ago, hallux said:

Better than that, since many lock their phone in the safe for the duration - something given to you by your waiter at dinner or as you enter the buffet the day prior.  MOST people eat dinner, it's the best place to 'catch' someone if you have to get a message to them.

Good point!  I know a wealth of people who turn their phones off as they don't want to run up an outrageous phone bill if someone calls in international waters and becomes subject to the crazy high "per minute" charges of such a call.

 

6 minutes ago, schnapperin said:

It’s always a risk to join a cruise at a later port, as mention there is never a guarantee a ship can dock or even more difficult use the tender boats. 
 

iceland is one I would never even think of trying, too many changes of high wind and storms everytime of the year

Not something I'd do.  It was convoluted to begin with....doing a B2B cruise and disembarking on the first leg early, and embarking on the 2nd one late.  What could go wrong?