LeBistro closed for entire Encore sailing due to private event

[commodoredave]

2 hours ago, complawyer said:

ok commodore dave,  dont leave us all in suspense, what was the rsolution, or are you bound by a NDA?

I was asked not to mention it prior to the cruise, so I will just say it was a very small gesture that can only be spent on the ship. No upgrade to The Haven or free cruise credit! 😀 But it’s the principle that counts, and in that regard I am satisfied.

[complawyer]

so in the end, it all worked out. good for you!!!!!

 

you'll see, once on board, the inability to dine in le bistro, although disappointing for you, hopefully will be compensated by all the other goodies offered on a cruise.

 

since you didnt take me up on dinner in cagneys, if we're ever on the same cruise, the 1st drink is on me.

 

have a great time, and most importantly "BON  VOYAGE"

[commodoredave]

1 hour ago, complawyer said:

so in the end, it all worked out. good for you!!!!!

 

you'll see, once on board, the inability to dine in le bistro, although disappointing for you, hopefully will be compensated by all the other goodies offered on a cruise.

 

since you didnt take me up on dinner in cagneys, if we're ever on the same cruise, the 1st drink is on me.

 

have a great time, and most importantly "BON  VOYAGE"

I would definitely enjoy having a drink with you, no matter who pays. 

[Z0nker]

22 hours ago, commodoredave said:

 It should be described up front as part of the booking process. Cruise lines have been forced by law to now disclose all additional costs of a cruise upfront. I suspect in time that they will be forced to disclose up front that what people are paying for may not be actually available on the cruise. It’s just common sense and basic consumer protection.

Any chance that’s already in the passage contract? 

[commodoredave]

1 minute ago, Z0nker said:

Any chance that’s already in the passage contract? 

I'm sure it is just as the extra port charges and taxes were buried in the contract. What's the harm in moving it up so that it is more visible? 

[Z0nker]

4 minutes ago, commodoredave said:

I'm sure it is just as the extra port charges and taxes were buried in the contract. What's the harm in moving it up so that it is more visible? 

Agreed. I just read the passage contract from another ship and the paragraph indemnifying the cruise line for any changes to itinerary or activities is buried deep. 

[yakcruiser]

I sort of feel sorry for the folks in this group. If they have to eat off the now very limited menu at Le Bistro, they are going to be sick of that place by day 4.

[mistertomatoe]

5 hours ago, The Traveling Man said:

Because spilling hot soup would be a problem???

 

Hot coffee on the pool deck or outdoor seating outside the buffet… I’ve been thinking a lot about this and I guess it’s really about how easy it is to clean up. 

[commodoredave]

28 minutes ago, yakcruiser said:

I sort of feel sorry for the folks in this group. If they have to eat off the now very limited menu at Le Bistro, they are going to be sick of that place by day 4.

Only if they sit on their taste buds.

[JSar]

On 9/8/2024 at 4:47 PM, commodoredave said:

They disclosed belatedly and without regard to the impact on customers. This time it was just one speciality dining restaurant, but next time it can be anything they want. This possibility must be disclosed upfront in the booking process not to put customers at a disadvanage. If things don't change, they will only get worse and cruise lines will eventually be forced to be more upfront. 

OMG... seriously... it is ONE restaurant. Heaven forbid it is closed. Must be the end of your world to miss out on one restaurant. Serious impact? Give me a break... 

[commodoredave]

11 minutes ago, JSar said:

OMG... seriously... it is ONE restaurant. Heaven forbid it is closed. Must be the end of your world to miss out on one restaurant. Serious impact? Give me a break... 

If you don’t care, that’s fine. I do, and as a result, I asked for and have received compensation. No skin off your back.

[Distinctive-Destinations]

55 minutes ago, JSar said:

OMG... seriously... it is ONE restaurant. Heaven forbid it is closed. Must be the end of your world to miss out on one restaurant. Serious impact? Give me a break... 

 

What if it was two restaurants? Or Three? Or how about all of them except the buffet? Certainly there has to be some point that causes an issue.

 

When booking a cruise, I think it is a reasonable assumption that you will have access to the standard amenities.

[commodoredave]

10 hours ago, Distinctive-Destinations said:

 

What if it was two restaurants? Or Three? Or how about all of them except the buffet? Certainly there has to be some point that causes an issue.

 

When booking a cruise, I think it is a reasonable assumption that you will have access to the standard amenities.

Agree. 

[ColeThornton]

10 hours ago, Distinctive-Destinations said:

What if it was two restaurants? Or Three? Or how about all of them except the buffet?  Certainly there has to be some point that causes an issue.

 

 

But it's not and it won't be.  This particular instance is a rare occurrence considering how many sailings NCL undertakes.

[detroitlions]

I was on the Escape maybe 4 years ago or so and there was 2 large groups on this sailing. One was for singles on match.

Every night the district brew house was closed for a private event.

That was not the worse of it every where we like to go or go to eat was taken over by the two groups on most nights.

I think this was by far my least favorite cruise. The DW and DS were not thrilled with this trip.

[JSar]

10 hours ago, Distinctive-Destinations said:

 

What if it was two restaurants? Or Three? Or how about all of them except the buffet? Certainly there has to be some point that causes an issue.

 

When booking a cruise, I think it is a reasonable assumption that you will have access to the standard amenities.

But it is NOT a standard amenity - it is an amenity you pay extra for. And there are alternate amenities available. A standard amenity would be the buffet or main dining rooms. If those are closed and you are forced to pay extra for the specialty dining and/or the remaining "included" dining rooms were extra crowded... then yes - that would be a significant problem. Again - the OP was given notice that this particular dining room will not be available. The OP now has the option to consider whether or not to continue with upgraded specialty dining or not... or to make a complaint. 

 

Yeah - two or three restaurants closed would be a problem. But one? And one of the smaller dining rooms? Not the end of the world. 

 

Maybe I refuse to let something like this ruin my vacation. I have had shore excursions cancelled - so I found something else fun to do. Heck - I got the port I was looking most forward to cancelled for my upcoming cruise... still not the end of the world. Still won't "significantly impact" my ability to enjoy my cruise. When I heard that port was cancelled, I made a decision to cancel the reservation I had to rent a golf cart in that city, and looked for alternative activities elsewhere - and since the port day was now a at sea day - I booked a massage. See how that works? You get informed of the change, you make a decision to either let it ruin your trip or embrace the change and make something good of the change. It is all about choice and attitude. 

 

Like I said somewhere else - personally - I would be thrilled that the private group would be confined to the closed dining room so that they are not all descending on the other dining rooms at the same time - which WOULD be much more bothersome to me. 

[commodoredave]

1 hour ago, JSar said:

But it is NOT a standard amenity - it is an amenity you pay extra for. And there are alternate amenities available. A standard amenity would be the buffet or main dining rooms. If those are closed and you are forced to pay extra for the specialty dining and/or the remaining "included" dining rooms were extra crowded... then yes - that would be a significant problem. Again - the OP was given notice that this particular dining room will not be available. The OP now has the option to consider whether or not to continue with upgraded specialty dining or not... or to make a complaint. 

 

Yeah - two or three restaurants closed would be a problem. But one? And one of the smaller dining rooms? Not the end of the world. 

 

Maybe I refuse to let something like this ruin my vacation. I have had shore excursions cancelled - so I found something else fun to do. Heck - I got the port I was looking most forward to cancelled for my upcoming cruise... still not the end of the world. Still won't "significantly impact" my ability to enjoy my cruise. When I heard that port was cancelled, I made a decision to cancel the reservation I had to rent a golf cart in that city, and looked for alternative activities elsewhere - and since the port day was now a at sea day - I booked a massage. See how that works? You get informed of the change, you make a decision to either let it ruin your trip or embrace the change and make something good of the change. It is all about choice and attitude. 

 

Like I said somewhere else - personally - I would be thrilled that the private group would be confined to the closed dining room so that they are not all descending on the other dining rooms at the same time - which WOULD be much more bothersome to me. 

Where did anyone say it would ruin their vacation? Of course it would not. But my fare included 3 evenings of specialty dining x 8 people. As a matter of principle, I expected a gesture of goodwill in return for the weeklong unavailability of one of the specialty restaurants. Any customer focused company would agree, and did. End of story.

[Travel R]

May the closure of Le Bistro be the worse thing to happen on your vacation.  Only stress about the small stuff. It's all small stuff.

[RocketMan275]

2 hours ago, commodoredave said:

Where did anyone say it would ruin their vacation? Of course it would not. But my fare included 3 evenings of specialty dining x 8 people. As a matter of principle, I expected a gesture of goodwill in return for the weeklong unavailability of one of the specialty restaurants. Any customer focused company would agree, and did. End of story.

You're still getting 3 evenings of specialty dining x 8 people.

[commodoredave]

35 minutes ago, RocketMan275 said:

You're still getting 3 evenings of specialty dining x 8 people.

But not at all the venues that were promoted and advertised. And not at the one we like the most. So they are providing me with less value and enjoyment. 

[RocketMan275]

3 minutes ago, commodoredave said:

But not at all the venues that were promoted and advertised. And not at the one we like the most. So they are providing me with less value and enjoyment. 

Once again, provide where NCL promised all the venues.  Read  the cruise contract,  you won't find a contractual promise.

[commodoredave]

Just now, RocketMan275 said:

Once again, provide where NCL promised all the venues.  Read  the cruise contract,  you won't find a contractual promise.

Just go on their website and look at the descriptions of their dining options. It does not have to be in the contract if a company is using the information to attract customers and generate business. It’s commonly known as false advertising and deceptive marketing, which may have reputational and legal consequences.

[RocketMan275]

29 minutes ago, commodoredave said:

Just go on their website and look at the descriptions of their dining options. It does not have to be in the contract if a company is using the information to attract customers and generate business. It’s commonly known as false advertising and deceptive marketing, which may have reputational and legal consequences.

Once again, you need to read the cruise contract which states in part:

 

"2. The Contract: The Guest agrees that this Contract governs the relationship between the Guest and the Carrier, regardless of the Guest's age, whether the Guest purchased the ticket on his or her own behalf, and/or whether the ticket has been held and/or presented by another person on behalf of the Guest. The Guest agrees that, except as expressly provided herein, this Contract constitutes the entire agreement between the Guest and Carrier, and shall supersede and exclude any prior representations that may have been made in relation to the cruise to the Guest or anyone representing him/her by anyone, including but not limited to anything stated in the Carrier's brochures, advertisements, and other promotional materials, by Norwegian Cruise Line or NCL America employees or by third persons such as travel agents. ..."

 

I underlined the part of the contract which completely negates your claim that this is 'false advertising, etc.'

[commodoredave]

Talking about reputational and legal risk, there is an interesting thread on the Silversea board called Silversea Shenanigans Onboard Silver Muse.

The OP has now taken the cruise line to arbitration over an upgraded brand of champagne that she did not receive but was apparently entitled to. The dispute is really over principle, and not the $10 difference in the 2 types of champagne. Now, if Silversea had handled the matter in a more customer friendly way, it could have avoided some reputational damage and legal costs. Never mind the many hours of labour invested in it. 

The outcome will be interesting.

 

 

[commodoredave]

1 minute ago, RocketMan275 said:

Once again, you need to read the cruise contract which states in part:

 

"2. The Contract: The Guest agrees that this Contract governs the relationship between the Guest and the Carrier, regardless of the Guest's age, whether the Guest purchased the ticket on his or her own behalf, and/or whether the ticket has been held and/or presented by another person on behalf of the Guest. The Guest agrees that, except as expressly provided herein, this Contract constitutes the entire agreement between the Guest and Carrier, and shall supersede and exclude any prior representations that may have been made in relation to the cruise to the Guest or anyone representing him/her by anyone, including but not limited to anything stated in the Carrier's brochures, advertisements, and other promotional materials, by Norwegian Cruise Line or NCL America employees or by third persons such as travel agents. ..."

 

I underlined the part of the contract which completely negates your claim that this is 'false advertising, etc.'

You have made a giant assumption that this type of language can and will survive a legal challenge and/or PR assault. Just ask Disney Inc. about that, and read my last post about Silversea. Courts have a history of disallowing contracts that are one sided.