Don’t travel with NCL for Itinerary

[cruiseny4life]

So as not to dive super deep into legalese which this is not a forum for, but to dispel rumors that a contract cannot be negated due to bad faith, I present as evidence for the jury:

 

 

Source: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/bad_faith#:~:text=Bad faith refers to dishonesty,standards%2C or a fraudulent intent.

 

Perhaps, eventually, a judge or jury will present their judgment on whether NCL acts in bad faith. Until that point, I won't argue the point (much). 

[RocketMan275]

1 hour ago, DCGuy64 said:

This 100% ^ ^ ^

I don't know why some people can't see that the contract is ultimately what matters. If the cruise line has the right to change the itinerary, then you agreed to it when you purchased your ticket. Why is this such a difficult concept for people?

There is a great misconception on the part of some people who do not  understand that the cruise contract defines what they are buying.  They think they are buying a cruise to port x,y, z and they are not.  They do not like what the cruise contract says.  One doubts they've even read the contract.

[RocketMan275]

7 minutes ago, cruiseny4life said:

So as not to dive super deep into legalese which this is not a forum for, but to dispel rumors that a contract cannot be negated due to bad faith, I present as evidence for the jury:

 

 

Source: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/bad_faith#:~:text=Bad faith refers to dishonesty,standards%2C or a fraudulent intent.

 

Perhaps, eventually, a judge or jury will present their judgment on whether NCL acts in bad faith. Until that point, I won't argue the point (much). 

You might have a point if the cruise line was promising a certain set of points.  However, the cruise line is very clear.  There is no room for misunderstanding or deception.  There is no dishonesty, fraud, etc.

[DCGuy64]

8 minutes ago, RocketMan275 said:

There is a great misconception on the part of some people who do not  understand that the cruise contract defines what they are buying.  They think they are buying a cruise to port x,y, z and they are not.  They do not like what the cruise contract says.  One doubts they've even read the contract.

Absolutely. But here's the thing: people can say that the contract doesn't matter, but you can bet your bottom dollar that if the cruise line violates the printed word of the contract in any way, shape or form, those same people will be quoting every last word of it! "But the contract says so!" (If it benefits me) 🤣

[RocketMan275]

1 hour ago, luv2kroooz said:

Appreciate your concern. They aren't and, judging from the HAL boards, apparently haven't at any time in the recent past. No comments or concerns about itinerary changes over there.

 

You apparently don't understand contract law very well, but there are other forums for that. Plus, we aren't interested in suing NCL nor did we pound our fists and stomp our feet demanding refunds when it happened to us. We rolled with it and enjoyed our cruise. We now understand how NCL currently operates and have intentionally determined it doesn't work for us. We have gladly moved on to other lines and enjoy cruise vacations free of itinerary chaos. You are free to do the same or not.

 

Are you familiar with this thread.  Updated regularly.

Example, Eurodam has 

26 October 2024 – 02 November 2024 : S Caribbean : Legendary R & B Cruise #41

02 November 2025 – 09 November 2025 : Caribbean : Malt Shop Memories Charter

09 November 2025 – 16 November 2025 : Caribbean : Soul Train 2.0 Cruise

30 November 2025 – 07 December 2025 : Caribbean : Possible Charter

07 December 2025 – 14 December 2025 : Caribbean : Possible Charter

04 January 2026 – 11 January 2026 : Caribbean : Possible Charter

11 January 2026 – 18 January 2026 : Caribbean : Big Easy Charter

18 January 2026 – 25 January 2026 : Caribbean : Sandy Beaches Charter

25 January 2026 – 01 February 2026 : Caribbean : Country Music Charter

01 February 2026 – 08 February 2026 : Caribbean : Soul Train Charter

08 February 2026 – 15 February 2026 : Caribbean : Good News Charter

 

You'll notice that three are listed as 'possible' which may mean it's a contingency charter.  Holland is very popular among full ship charters due to the since their ships tend to be smaller and easier to fill.  So this happens frequently.

 

There are multiple listings for other Holland vessels.  

 

BTW, for what it's worth I have 30+ years experience writing and managing contracts.  The last was a multi-year contract worth over a billion dollars.

[DCGuy64]

There are those who will say that even if the cruise line can do something, per the cruise contract, maybe it shouldn't. That's fair. But guess what else is fair? Just because someone who hates a particular cruise line and swears never to use it again, CAN post on Cruise Critic all of the time about it, doesn't mean he/she should.

[luv2kroooz]

3 minutes ago, RocketMan275 said:

Are you familiar with this thread.  Updated regularly.

Example, Eurodam has 

26 October 2024 – 02 November 2024 : S Caribbean : Legendary R & B Cruise #41

02 November 2025 – 09 November 2025 : Caribbean : Malt Shop Memories Charter

09 November 2025 – 16 November 2025 : Caribbean : Soul Train 2.0 Cruise

30 November 2025 – 07 December 2025 : Caribbean : Possible Charter

07 December 2025 – 14 December 2025 : Caribbean : Possible Charter

04 January 2026 – 11 January 2026 : Caribbean : Possible Charter

11 January 2026 – 18 January 2026 : Caribbean : Big Easy Charter

18 January 2026 – 25 January 2026 : Caribbean : Sandy Beaches Charter

25 January 2026 – 01 February 2026 : Caribbean : Country Music Charter

01 February 2026 – 08 February 2026 : Caribbean : Soul Train Charter

08 February 2026 – 15 February 2026 : Caribbean : Good News Charter

 

You'll notice that three are listed as 'possible' which may mean it's a contingency charter.  Holland is very popular among full ship charters due to the since their ships tend to be smaller and easier to fill.  So this happens frequently.

 

There are multiple listings for other Holland vessels.  

 

BTW, for what it's worth I have 30+ years experience writing and managing contracts.  The last was a multi-year contract worth over a billion dollars.

Thank you.

[DCGuy64]

5 minutes ago, RocketMan275 said:

You'll notice that three are listed as 'possible' which may mean it's a contingency charter.  Holland is very popular among full ship charters due to the since their ships tend to be smaller and easier to fill.  So this happens frequently.

Exactly, @RocketMan275. So much for "only NCL does this." LOL

[luv2kroooz]

5 minutes ago, DCGuy64 said:

There are those who will say that even if the cruise line can do something, per the cruise contract, maybe it shouldn't. That's fair. But guess what else is fair? Just because someone who hates a particular cruise line and swears never to use it again, CAN post on Cruise Critic all of the time about it, doesn't mean he/she should.

Wow, just wow. Dude, I have no words but to again call out the incorrect and inaccurate info you post. Hate? Swears? I don't hate NCL. I have said over and again we would sail NCL for the bus run itineraries and at the right price point. We hold 2 cruise next certificates, after all. 

 

You are so emotional that you are acting irrationally. I am moving on. I truly wish you all the best, man. Peace.

Edited 5 hours ago by luv2kroooz

[DCGuy64]

33 minutes ago, luv2kroooz said:

Wow, just wow. Dude, I have no words but to again call out the incorrect and inaccurate info you post. Hate? Swears? I don't hate NCL. I have said over and again we would sail NCL for the bus run itineraries and at the right price point. We hold 2 cruise next certificates, after all. 

 

You are so emotional that you are acting irrationally. I am moving on. I truly wish you all the best, man. Peace.

I never mentioned any particular person. If you feel it applies to you, that's on you, my dude. 😉

Have a good weekend! 

[kby1216]

I believe the "fraud" occurs when you pay port fees for a certain number of ports and then they turn one (or several) of those port days into sea days with no return of those port fees. Even a small on board credit would go a long way in smoothing out some ruffled feathers. We choose our cruises based on itinerary, the timing of the changes seem very suspect when they happen within a few days of final payment. If they have itineraries set years in advance, how do they not know they are dropping one until days after final payment it is due? I have no problem with changes due to weather, medical emergencies, civil unrest, all of these things are beyond anyone's control. Dropping a port because of fuel costs seems poor planning on NCL's part for not making that decision before I paid for something I am not receiving and now have no recourse to change to an itinerary I want within their product (not asking for a full refund).

[CruiseMH]

20 hours ago, RocketMan275 said:

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.  

You still don`t get it.

What i said is that if they need more money for the fuel then they shall raise the cruise price from the beginning . Not charging any additional costs afterwards. It doesn`t matter whether it is 10 USD or 500 USD: Charging afterwards after final payment for something they could have easily calculatedin advance just leads to thousands of unhappy customers and makes them look unprofessional. If they would raise the cruise fare by just 20-30 USD per person for EVERY cruise that would make dozens of millions of additional income which they can use for the increased fuel costs. Then they would not need to debit something after final payment and so all customers would be much happier.

 

 

[DCGuy64]

3 minutes ago, kby1216 said:

I believe the "fraud" occurs when you pay port fees for a certain number of ports and then they turn one (or several) of those port days into sea days with no return of those port fees. Even a small on board credit would go a long way in smoothing out some ruffled feathers. We choose our cruises based on itinerary, the timing of the changes seem very suspect when they happen within a few days of final payment. If they have itineraries set years in advance, how do they not know they are dropping one until days after final payment it is due? I have no problem with changes due to weather, medical emergencies, civil unrest, all of these things are beyond anyone's control. Dropping a port because of fuel costs seems poor planning on NCL's part for not making that decision before I paid for something I am not receiving and now have no recourse to change to an itinerary I want within their product (not asking for a full refund).

That's interesting, because we have always gotten port fees returned AND onboard credit when a port had to be skipped. The fuel cost issue really interests me. I sometimes wonder whether the cruise industry's bad reputation as being fuel hogs is prompting NCL to change its itineraries in order to burn less fuel and be better for the environment.

[RocketMan275]

3 minutes ago, CruiseMH said:

You still don`t get it.

What i said is that if they need more money for the fuel then they shall raise the cruise price from the beginning . Not charging any additional costs afterwards. It doesn`t matter whether it is 10 USD or 500 USD: Charging afterwards after final payment for something they could have easily calculatedin advance just leads to thousands of unhappy customers and makes them look unprofessional. If they would raise the cruise fare by just 20-30 USD per person for EVERY cruise that would make dozens of millions of additional income which they can use for the increased fuel costs. Then they would not need to debit something after final payment and so all customers would be much happier.

 

 

The cruise lines are competing for business and adding several hundred dollars to each fare would mean NCL is less competitive.  I do believe you are under estimating how many select their cruise lines based upon price.    Raising fares isn't the way to make all customers happier.  

[kby1216]

2 minutes ago, DCGuy64 said:

That's interesting, because we have always gotten port fees returned AND onboard credit when a port had to be skipped. The fuel cost issue really interests me. I sometimes wonder whether the cruise industry's bad reputation as being fuel hogs is prompting NCL to change its itineraries in order to burn less fuel and be better for the environment.

That is great for itineraries going forward or not yet past final payment. Waiting until the customer has made final payment is not delivering the product that was promised and is very much within their control unlike weather related changes.

 

[julig22]

1 hour ago, RocketMan275 said:

You might have a point if the cruise line was promising a certain set of points.  However, the cruise line is very clear.  There is no room for misunderstanding or deception.  There is no dishonesty, fraud, etc.

Perhaps that is the problem. Just as cruise lines have recently been told they have to include taxes/port fees maybe they shouldn't be able to change ports without allowing no penalty cancellations or rebooking. If an airline changes your flight, they rebook you - maybe it's time cruise lines do the same.

[CruiseMH]

28 minutes ago, RocketMan275 said:

The cruise lines are competing for business and adding several hundred dollars to each fare would mean NCL is less competitive.  I do believe you are under estimating how many select their cruise lines based upon price.    Raising fares isn't the way to make all customers happier.  

 

I know that there is a hard competition. Many choose by price but if NCL is the cheapest and after final payment they get charged another 10% for fuel surcharge then i would guess that many of these customers will choose another cruise line next time,even if it might be a bit more expensive.

 

[DCGuy64]

59 minutes ago, kby1216 said:

That is great for itineraries going forward or not yet past final payment. Waiting until the customer has made final payment is not delivering the product that was promised and is very much within their control unlike weather related changes.

 

Hmm. Well, there are a few ways of looking at this, as I see it:

1. Fuel costs may have risen between the time you originally booked and when you sailed, so it's not a cost they knew about initially. (Just like when I plan a road trip in my car and budget a certain amount for gas, but the price may change.)

2. The itinerary might change, which would necessitate buying more fuel (potentially).

3. In the end, if you pay $20 more at the start or $20 more at the end, who cares? You're out $20 either way.

I consider it a possibility no matter what, and I'm not going to cancel a cruise based on a piddling fuel cost surcharge.

 

[complawyer]

to paraphrase Shakespeare to cruise ncl or not to cruise ncl that is the question!

sorry. poetic license invoked here

 

so my friend, if your theory is do not cruise ncl for the itinerary (or any cruise line for their itinerary) what would be your actual reason to cruise ncl?

 

I've posted many times in the past, itinerary is my main motivation to choose NCL. 

I still maintain for price and itinerary. NCL gives  you the best bang for your buck!

[yakcruiser]

5 minutes ago, complawyer said:

to paraphrase Shakespeare to cruise ncl or not to cruise ncl that is the question!

sorry. poetic license invoked here

 

so my friend, if your theory is do not cruise ncl for the itinerary (or any cruise line for their itinerary) what would be your actual reason to cruise ncl?

 

I've posted many times in the past, itinerary is my main motivation to choose NCL. 

I still maintain for price and itinerary. NCL gives  you the best bang for your buck!

I find it funny that an actual lawyer on here does not get involved in all the legal wrangling going on here.

[luv2kroooz]

6 minutes ago, yakcruiser said:

I find it funny that an actual lawyer on here does not get involved in all the legal wrangling going on here.

I don't. Most successful lawyers are busy. They aren't fishing around cruisecritic for clients. Why would any successful lawyer get involved here without being paid for their time?

[Ozmodiar]

What is the first option on NCL's home page they have set to search for to help customers select a cruise? Destination, then departure port, then date. Want to be more specific than Destination, you can also search by Port of Call.

 

What do they list right under length and departure port when you do a search? The number of days and then the list of the Ports of Call.

 

What is the blurb about when you select View Cruise? The places the cruise is going to take you and the exciting things to do there.

 

I don't see NCL selling cruises as "We leave from port X and over the next 7 days we may stop somewhere, not sure yet." They sell cruises by itinerary. They promote by itinerary. The Shore Excursion marketing to do an excursion is "This is why you are here".

 

I understand what the contract says, but they certainly do not have caveats on each cruise description that "the itinerary may change at our whim after final payment". 

 

They have chosen to focus on the ports as what they are selling. They need to do better at delivering on what they are selling. I have serious doubts the legal concept is that someone can knowingly sell you X when they already know they will not deliver X and intend to substitute with Y, but can get away with that based on contract language designed to cover unexpected issues. 

 

 

 

[complawyer]

most, if not all lawyers do not get involved with legal issues that do not involve them. many years ago, i was advised not to give out free legal advice, as it may be misconstrued and end up biting me in the butt. even if i gave an opinion or a comment, it's just a gut  reaction, and i'm not about to do a ton of research on the ramifications of the fine print in an NCL contract.

 

Sorry if that disappoints you, but by all means, keep on laughing if you find it funny

 

since ive sailed with ncl over 30 times over the past 14  years, and of course had a few ports changed or cancelled, i consider this an "occupational hazard" and since i enjoy cruising for its own sake, i choose to remain neutral on this issue. my only real thought is that of course if it's a port  I was looking forward to visiting, yes, it is a disappointment! other than that, i consider this a minor inconvenience, and i'm still able to totally enjoy the cruise. A major shout out and tip of the hat to luv2cruise for acknowledging an attorney's point of view.

8 minutes ago, yakcruiser said:

I find it funny that an actual lawyer on here does not get involved in all the legal wrangling going on here.

 a shout out and tip of the hat to luv2krooze, for acknowledging an attorney's point of view. 

 

9 minutes ago, yakcruiser said:

I find it funny that an actual lawyer on here does not get involved in all the legal wrangling going on here.

 

[RocketMan275]

1 hour ago, julig22 said:

Perhaps that is the problem. Just as cruise lines have recently been told they have to include taxes/port fees maybe they shouldn't be able to change ports without allowing no penalty cancellations or rebooking. If an airline changes your flight, they rebook you - maybe it's time cruise lines do the same.

Airlines changing flights is a bad analogy.

With an airline, you book a flight from point A to point C with one intervening stop.

The airline cannot change A and C without rebooking.  The intervening stop can be changed with no rebooking.

[yakcruiser]

34 minutes ago, complawyer said:

 

 

Sorry if that disappoints you, but by all means, keep on laughing if you find it funny

 

 

 

 

Not disappointed at all. I was making fun of all the so-called legal experts on here. I drove 43 years for a living and the first thing I do when somebody suggests we take a trip is to throw them the keys and tell them they are driving.

Edited 2 hours ago by yakcruiser