Don’t travel with NCL for Itinerary

[RocketMan275]

3 minutes ago, CruiseMH said:

NCL KNOWS the amount of fuel they need for a specific itinerary. These are not two college students sitting there with a calculator in their hand.these are professionals and can calculate the amount of fuel pretty exactly.  And also the fuel prices might change but usually the fluctuation is not that big. And even if it would be,they wouldn`t know it already 4 months in advance.

If they need more money for the fuel due to whatever reasons then they should simply raise their cruise prices by 10-20 USD. Nobody would notice it and everybody would be happy to get the itinerary they booked.

The fuel surcharge can be as much as 10% of the cruise fare.  Sometimes it's quoted as $10-$15 but that's $10-$15 per passenger per day.  I'm sure a family of four in an inside on a seven day cruise just might notice an increase of $420.  I doubt that would make them happy especially if it was after final payment and they could not cancel their cruise.  I suspect more folks are interested in the cost than they are in the itinerary.

 

 

[CruiseMH]

11 minutes ago, RocketMan275 said:

The fuel surcharge can be as much as 10% of the cruise fare.  Sometimes it's quoted as $10-$15 but that's $10-$15 per passenger per day.  I'm sure a family of four in an inside on a seven day cruise just might notice an increase of $420.  I doubt that would make them happy especially if it was after final payment and they could not cancel their cruise.  I suspect more folks are interested in the cost than they are in the itinerary.

 

 

Guess you misunderstood me.

I meant they shall raise the cruise fare from the beginning.

[Derek1105]

5 hours ago, RocketMan275 said:

Question for all those complaining about changes in itinerary to save fuel:

Do you think the majority of  those cruising would prefer no changes to the itinerary or a fuel surcharge?

I thought fuel prices have reduced lately? So, for a cruise in March, there should be no reason to cancel Bonaire to replace it with a 2nd stop in the Dominican Republic (or should i say be marooned in a hole in the wall stop)?  NCL simply wants to save money on fuel and screw us over in the process.

[luv2kroooz]

5 hours ago, RocketMan275 said:

Question for all those complaining about changes in itinerary to save fuel:

Do you think the majority of  those cruising would prefer no changes to the itinerary or a fuel surcharge?

If they feel they need to implement a fuel surcharge, then that is exactly what they should do. Charge a fuel supplement. They'd be the only cruise line in the industry that needs a fuel supplement to operate their cruises, but hey, that is their choice. It is also our choice to pay it or cruise on a line that doesn't have a fuel supplement. 

 

I think what I would prefer is for NCL to be more intentional and transparent about itineraries and craft them in a manner that meets whatever fuel objectives or efficiencies they are trying to meet. They need to do all of this BEFORE they start marketing the itineraries and taking money from their passengers. They are the ONLY cruise line in the industry that currently does this to their paying guests by changing itineraries at the last hour for reasons that create economic benefits for NCL, and additional economic costs to their paying guests. I am only talking about matters of corporate convenience, fuel efficiencies, guest feedback, operational matters. I am not talking about medical emergencies, civil unrest, hurricanes, and mechanical failures, which require itinerary adjustments at times.

 

And they couch it with the most ridiculous platitudes about how they are working tirelessly to deliver vacation experiences, and how they value our vacation dollars.  I mean, why would have to work tirelessly to do that? This is a cruise vacation not a heart transplant. It is just a bunch of word salad and the hypocrisy is not lost on me.

 

Again, if they want to maximize itineraries for efficiencies, go ahead. But don't do it on someone else's dime.

 

 

 

 

[luv2kroooz]

5 hours ago, RocketMan275 said:

Actually, implementing a fuel surcharge would inconvenience most guests.

 

Question: don't  you think changing these itineraries is a way to create itineraries that are compliant

How? They'd just sail on a different cruise line. Problem solved.

 

The timing of the change is what is being called into question.

[luv2kroooz]

3 hours ago, schmoopie17 said:

So...let me see if I have this straight.

 

Don't cruise on NCL because of itinerary changes. Or bad entertainment. Or once daily cabin service. Or horrible food. Or waits for drinks. Or MAS replacing FAS+. Or no hash browns or cookies. Or...

You actually have it all wrong. No one is telling you what you should or shouldn't do. 

People are presenting facts, which routinely get mislabeled as complaints.

What you choose to do or not do with the facts is on you. I couldn't care less. Neither could NCL.

[The Traveling Man]

3 hours ago, biker@sea said:

I have sailed more than 30 times since 2008 on NCL and never missed a port yet.

 

.

Wow, you really have been fortunate.  I have sailed with NCL 36 times since 2012.  We have either missed a port entirely, arrived much later than originally planned, left earlier than originally scheduled, or visited the port on a different day than first planned a total of at least two dozen times.  That includes a 12 day cruise with only three planned sea days on which we actually arrived at just one of the planned ports of call.

[The Traveling Man]

29 minutes ago, luv2kroooz said:

You actually have it all wrong. No one is telling you what you should or shouldn't do. 

People are presenting facts, which routinely get mislabeled as complaints.

What you choose to do or not do with the facts is on you. I couldn't care less. Neither could NCL.

I do believe that @schmoopie17 was attempting to be ironic.  Anyway, that's the way I interpreted it.

[UnbridledEnthusiasm]

I've heard this before from family who have booked NCL quite a bit. I'll be honest, on every single NCL cruise that I have taken regardless of destination, there's been at least 1 itinerary change that either included a port change, making a port a sea day, or shortening hours significantly. I've learned to expect it with NCL. I know to some itinerary isn't important which is great, but to some of us it is. I know I work a 9-5 and have limited time off so if I'm traveling a long distance, itinerary is a priority for me over say just being on ship going to talks about the history of the watch, looking at art, doing cupcake decorating, playing BINGO, and looking at ice sculptures.  

[schmoopie17]

16 minutes ago, The Traveling Man said:

I do believe that @schmoopie17 was attempting to be ironic.  Anyway, that's the way I interpreted it.

I guess I need to be less sarcastic in the future.

 

On second thought...

[9tee2Sea]

boy, folks have to learn to roll with it.  I was scheduled for a cruise that had a stop in Cuba

( ancestral birthplace).  Cruise got re-routed 1 week before boarding ( the travel embargo was put back on).  Yes, I was disappointed, but thats life.  It specifically states i the contract that the cruiseline can change things up for any reason.  Folks of the cruise already booked that tie away, so if the port changes, so what.  You are still on a cruise.  If the changing of ports becomes an issue, then don’t cruise.  Do land trips.  If a cruise is cheaper than a land trip option, then you have no choice but to just go with the flow.

[luv2kroooz]

28 minutes ago, schmoopie17 said:

I guess I need to be less sarcastic in the future.

 

On second thought...

Karma has no menu. You get whatever is being served. 

[luv2kroooz]

24 minutes ago, 9tee2Sea said:

boy, folks have to learn to roll with it.

No one is talking about regulatory embargos. Totally false and off topic. The only thing rolling was our family.....away from NCL. What we learned is that there are alternatives to itinerary chaos....and they aren't land based as you erroneously suggested. But, hey, you do you.

[RocketMan275]

2 hours ago, CruiseMH said:

Guess you misunderstood me.

I meant they shall raise the cruise fare from the beginning.

How will that make a family whose fare just increased by 10% feel better?

[cruiseny4life]

23 minutes ago, RocketMan275 said:

How will that make a family whose fare just increased by 10% feel better?

Why do you keep saying 10%? The fuel surcharge is currently up to a maximum of $10 per passenger per day. 

 

Source: https://www.ncl.com/faq#!#fuel-supplement

[luv2kroooz]

32 minutes ago, RocketMan275 said:

How will that make a family whose fare just increased by 10% feel better?

If they book on a different cruise line, they would know the up front cost and would have the opportunity to save the 10% or whatever the charge would be. Takes the surprise element out of the equation.

[RocketMan275]

7 minutes ago, luv2kroooz said:

If they book on a different cruise line, they would know the up front cost and would have the opportunity to save the 10% or whatever the charge would be. Takes the surprise element out of the equation.

No.  Cruise lines can impose the fuel surcharge after final payment.  Suprise.

[DCGuy64]

On 10/16/2024 at 11:32 AM, Trailblazerram said:

If you are the sort of person who likes life on board a ship and don’t get off at ports then Norwegian is the cruise line for you.

If like me you select cruises for their itinerary DONT CHOOSE THIS CRUISELINE. They tempt you in with an exciting choice of ports then change them for penny pinching reasons to create a different cruise without giving you the option to cancel ( or they leave it so late it will cost you too much) Having achieved Sapphire status with this line we will now be voting with our feet and going with more reputable lines. I don’t mind paying more if they produce what they promise. 

Thanks for the warning, but we've only had a handful of ports cancelled, all were for weather related reasons, and I'm personally thankful the captain didn't put the lives of his passengers in jeopardy.

[RocketMan275]

18 minutes ago, cruiseny4life said:

Why do you keep saying 10%? The fuel surcharge is currently up to a maximum of $10 per passenger per day. 

 

Source: https://www.ncl.com/faq#!#fuel-supplement

A family of four could be charged $280 on a seven day cruise.

If their cabin is $2800, then that's a 10% increase.  

Cruise lines have different policies (amount).  

Cabins have different prices.

NCL reserves the right to impose fuel surcharges on existing reservations even after paid in full.

Now which is worse, a fuel surcharge imposed after final payment or an itinerary after final?

 

 

[JSar]

8 hours ago, RocketMan275 said:

Question for all those complaining about changes in itinerary to save fuel:

Do you think the majority of  those cruising would prefer no changes to the itinerary or a fuel surcharge?

I am not even sure how many ports are cancelled to save fuel. I know I heard people claim that is why one of my ports was cancelled. Come to find out... the port had limited the number of boats permitted to dock each day... and NCL wasn't going to be allowed to dock. But yeah... I would prefer to cost rose a little to accommodate. But from what I can see on this board... a lot of people seem to speculate as to why a specific port has been cancelled without any firm knowledge on their part. 

[RocketMan275]

6 minutes ago, JSar said:

I am not even sure how many ports are cancelled to save fuel. I know I heard people claim that is why one of my ports was cancelled. Come to find out... the port had limited the number of boats permitted to dock each day... and NCL wasn't going to be allowed to dock. But yeah... I would prefer to cost rose a little to accommodate. But from what I can see on this board... a lot of people seem to speculate as to why a specific port has been cancelled without any firm knowledge on their part. 

There is an ongoing narrative on this board that NCL is playing bait and switch promising certain items then not delivering in order to increase NCL profits.  The narrative is sometimes changing ports to save on fuel costs, sometimes deleting the FAS+, reducing the entertainment, removing high dollar items like steaks from the menus, nickel and diming, etc., etc.  You'll notice those making these claims have no experience in operating a cruise line.

The thing is, you can find similar accusations on every cruise line board on this forum.

[CruiseMH]

1 hour ago, RocketMan275 said:

How will that make a family whose fare just increased by 10% feel better?

 

Don`t you read my posts ?

I said 20-30 USD for the cruise, not per day !

 

 

Edited 17 hours ago by CruiseMH

[luv2kroooz]

1 minute ago, RocketMan275 said:

There is an ongoing narrative on this board that NCL is playing bait and switch promising certain items then not delivering in order to increase NCL profits.  The narrative is sometimes changing ports to save on fuel costs, sometimes deleting the FAS+, reducing the entertainment, removing high dollar items like steaks from the menus, nickel and diming, etc., etc.  You'll notice those making these claims have no experience in operating a cruise line.

The thing is, you can find similar accusations on every cruise line board on this forum.

Accusations? Narratives? I think most people are reading NCLs own press releases.

[RocketMan275]

Just now, CruiseMH said:

 

Don`t you read my posts ?

I said 20-30 USD ,not 10 % !

 

 

Yes, I read your post.  Not read mine.  It's never $20 or $30,  It's $10 PPPD.  Family of four, seven day cruise is $280.  

[RocketMan275]

2 minutes ago, luv2kroooz said:

Accusations? Narratives? I think most people are reading NCLs own press releases.

And accusing NCL to make these changes to increase profits from a bait and switch narrative.