Fully 1/2 of itinerary switch/deleted, no refund of fee to change date or ship

[Cruisecorn]

4 minutes ago, SeaShark said:

 

I know that you meant "exceptions", but your point is valid. Additionally, for NCL or any other line to do so would be to negate the reason to purchase the insurance which is available for cases just like this. We have to discourage the mindset of: I don't want to pay for insurance because I typically don't need it, but when I actually do, the cruise line should be out the money...not me.

I did have insurance that wouldn’t pay for “just itinerary change” ( no matter what percentage) it payed for medical or other reasons. I didn’t ask to cancel the cruise but to switch to another date or ship with an itinerary closer to what THEY ADVERTISED on the cruise I booked. In my opinion major itinerary changes after final payment without the possibility to switch dates or ships within the company seems like a big screw you to their customers. Obviously it was worth it to me to cancel take the monetary hit and change companies to go where I prefer to cruise to. Everyone is free to make up their own mind about who they spend their money with based on their own experience. 

[mking8288]

Perhaps, someone at the corner suite at NCL HQ in Miami finally woke up and all the noises got their attention, and changes with their M.O. happening ... instead of waiting until final payment & cancellation penalty kicks in with the usual boilerplate language of "unforeseen circumstances, optimize to sail & sustain, yada yada.    Now, that is NOT that difficult to do - announcing and informing the passengers booked 11 days earlier isn't mission impossible, and, well within what NCL management and operations can do.  

 

See below - correspondence signed by K. Byrd, VP at NCL.  

 

 

Email pushed out this afternoon at T minus 131 days, almost at the point where we can start booking specialty dining at 125 days out (Ambassadors at 130 days) ... these came directly from NCL's email i.p.  Haven't receive anything indirectly as another booking is via our TA. 

 

Moved up the departure time to a more normal afternoon time slot, 4 PM instead of 8 PM (EDT, of course ... )  No longer calling on Nassau but instead, going to Bimini, Bahamas.  Of course, GSC is always 50:50 conditional upon successful tendering b/c ... waiting for the dock to be built & finished, no idea if they will be done or when - often becoming another "fun day at sea" after coming to a full stop, prepared to drop anchor & then.  

 

Whether "we" like the substituted port with the change, that is a different story, on this "milky" routing ... and don't know if the port taxes/fees/charges are any different between Nassau and Bimini, almost certain any adjustments will be "advantage, NCL" instead of "us" per the "contract"   

 

We have the option to cancel or not sail this revised itinerary over the next 10 days, and, that is a win.  

 

 

Edited 22 hours ago by mking8288

[JSar]

19 minutes ago, mking8288 said:

Perhaps, someone at the corner suite at NCL HQ in Miami finally woke up and all the noises got their attention, and changes with their M.O. happening ... instead of waiting until final payment & cancellation penalty kicks in with the usual boilerplate language of "unforeseen circumstances, optimize to sail & sustain, yada yada.    Now, that is NOT that difficult to do - announcing and informing the passengers booked 11 days earlier isn't mission impossible, and, well within what NCL management and operations can do.  

 

 

 

They certainly did a better job writing that notification letter better than previous letters that I have read!

[JSar]

12 hours ago, UKstages said:

they’re not anecdotes. they are factual, verifiable occurrences.

 

and there are dozens, if not hundreds, of them.

 

 

Factual, verifiable occurrences of itinerary changes I am sure. I have seen quite a few of those myself. Actual PROOF of FRAUD? Hardly. Reasonable SUSPICION of fraud at best.  

 

And how many are reports of the same itinerary changes over and over... 

 

Again.... if you have good evidence of actual fraud... tell it to an actual judge/jury. I am all for people calling NCL on actual fraud. But complaints on one website are hardly proof of fraud. 

[erisajd]

On 10/18/2024 at 4:15 PM, luv2kroooz said:

....so does every other cruise line. But, the other lines don't change itineraries after final date for fuel efficiencies, guest satisfaction and operational considerations. To change any itinerary for these reasons after final payment and not offer a refund of some sort is taking it too far. Otherwise, everyone would be doing it. NCL is alone in the industry here.

Sure they do - ever heard of hurricanes, tender failures, port strikes and the list goes on.   You REALLY want to go to a port controlled by a cartel unpoliced by legit police?  

 

If you read the contract they can put you on a dinghy in the harbor, take you to a port restaurant, feed you and then put you up on a ferry in a cabin and sail you around the departure port . . .

[CAKEisgood]

On 10/18/2024 at 2:32 PM, Ozmodiar said:

I have reached the point that I will not book with NCL until after final payment, especially for their more exotic and "extraordinary journeys".

I can understand your rationale. We are recently retired and have found for the more exotic cruises if we wait until after the final payment is due, then we find a great price (and amazing cabins). We did this twice this year and saved thousands of dollars. Curiously, both cruises included one port change even after the final payment due date, but they weren’t deal breakers for us. 
 

I can empathize with OP and so sorry they had several ports changed on such short notice. 

[SeaShark]

4 hours ago, Cruisecorn said:

I did have insurance that wouldn’t pay for “just itinerary change” ( no matter what percentage) it payed for medical or other reasons. I didn’t ask to cancel the cruise but to switch to another date or ship with an itinerary closer to what THEY ADVERTISED on the cruise I booked. In my opinion major itinerary changes after final payment without the possibility to switch dates or ships within the company seems like a big screw you to their customers. Obviously it was worth it to me to cancel take the monetary hit and change companies to go where I prefer to cruise to. Everyone is free to make up their own mind about who they spend their money with based on their own experience. 

 

As you know, you can't just "have insurance"...you have to have the right insurance. It sounds like you didn't select a policy to cover itinerary changes, thus...for this instance...you we're uninsured.

 

Perhaps you don't know this, but you DID ask to cancel the cruise. In this business there is no such thing as switching the date. You cancel one cruise and then book a new cruise to replace it.

 

I can't address your next statement that starts with "In my opinion" since it is just your opinion and nobody's opinion is necessarily "fact". Also can't help what it "seems like" as the problem could simply be that the failure lies in the "seems" part.

[julig22]

6 hours ago, Cruisecorn said:

Agree, I don’t know what percentage of NCL cruises have port changes after final

payment but as I just posted in another’s post

   

 

If indeed is isn’t that common it would seem that when they make a MAJOR change (50% of itinerary) after last payment they would be flexible with allowing their customer to change dates or ships without penalty.Seems little to ask if the numbers are truly small. 

Overall, the numbers may not be that large. However, if you look at their "Extraordinary Journeys" the picture changes. Those unique ports are the ones that seem to be affected most often. Allowing a lift and drop or FCC would certainly be an option - unfortunately NCL doesn't seem to think so.

Yes, I know what the contract allows, doesn't mean they couldn't offer something.

[julig22]

6 hours ago, Cruisecorn said:

Agree, I don’t know what percentage of NCL cruises have port changes after final

payment but as I just posted in another’s post

   

 

If indeed is isn’t that common it would seem that when they make a MAJOR change (50% of itinerary) after last payment they would be flexible with allowing their customer to change dates or ships without penalty.Seems little to ask if the numbers are truly small. 

Overall, the numbers may not be that large. However, if you look at their "Extraordinary Journeys" the picture changes. Those unique ports are the ones that seem to be affected most often. Allowing a lift and drop or FCC would certainly be an option - unfortunately NCL doesn't seem to think so.

Yes, I know what the contract allows, doesn't mean they couldn't offer something.

[DCGuy64]

14 hours ago, hoops71 said:

That is precisely one of the issues.  How do we define "slight adjustments" versus major changes.  After reading the boards, I have definitely seen three or four complaints that I would consider major changes. (changing beginning port, ending port, or numerous ports such as the OP here).  But then I seen others complaining about missing Mazatlan!  I would consider that an improvement!

 

But that is just my personal opinion, and I know people's vary.  For example,  just off the Breakaway October 6th.  We tendered at Bar Harbor.  It was nice, but I would not have considered it a great loss if we had to skip it.  Surely would not have ruined the cruise.  I know others feel differently about that stop.

 

But if there are 5 "major changed" cruises out 632, that is less than 1%.  Doesn't make those deviations right. But it would show that the issue is over represented on this forum.

Exactly. Less than 1% is statistically insignificant and irrelevant. It means that 99% of cruises hit every port as scheduled. I'd wager that a 99% success rate is FAR HIGHER than many competing travel options. How many airlines have a 99% on-time record? Well said, @hoops71!

[UKstages]

more straw man arguments.

NCL has a pretty good on time record. we’re talking about destinations here… canceled ports.

 

if you want to compare it to airlines, you should ask how often does a scheduled flight to los angles land in keokuk instead?

 

[Capitan Obvious]

44 minutes ago, UKstages said:

more straw man arguments.

NCL has a pretty good on time record. we’re talking about destinations here… canceled ports.

 

if you want to compare it to airlines, you should ask how often does a scheduled flight to los angles land in keokuk instead?

 

 

Not quite the "own" you think it is, but nice try. 

 

First, we aren't talking destinations. The destination is the disembarkation port. What we are talking about are stops along the way to the destination.

 

Using the airline model, it isn't accurate to ask about landing in Keokuk when the flight was to Los Angeles. An accurate comparison would be to say if I booked a flight from NY to LA with a stop in Phoenix, how often would they change it to a flight from NY to LA with a stop in Denver instead?

 

And the answer is simply NOT THAT OFTEN. Even with a change in the stop along the way, you would still reach your destination and given how rarely it happens, whining about the change in the stop along the way is just overblown drama.

[mking8288]

A new price drop again this morning when we reprice our balconies again, the TA probably not going to be too thrilled since they need to do one of them, at least it's before final payment ... factor in the extra NAS dining charge with 1 extra SD x 2, costing more $$$ and we'll likely decline it entirely. 

 

Still being advertised as going to Nassau and sailing at 8 PM 😤 🙄 😳

 

The "new" NCL is showing the old itinerary and times as well, 😒 WT_

 

 

Meanwhile, the CC roll call following us on 3/15 just got notified that theirs are being changed as well ... posted/shared 2 hours ago - 

 

  I just received the email from Norwegian that they are changing up our time of deportation and the dates of our ports.  We are now leaving at 4PM and going to Great Stirrup Cay first, then Nassau and then Port Canaveral.  I wonder what prompted the changes.  It's is all still good.

 

True, still good to some but not necessary others.  This is fine, perhaps if you do ship excursion but private & tours by local, gotta deal with the vendors directly yourself & see that all are on the same "page"

 

Damn the contract chats, incompetence at its finest at NCL on display, but at least someone has noticed the apparent trembling on social media, not just here on CC. 

Edited 5 hours ago by mking8288

[hoops71]

2 hours ago, UKstages said:

more straw man arguments.

NCL has a pretty good on time record. we’re talking about destinations here… canceled ports.

 

if you want to compare it to airlines, you should ask how often does a scheduled flight to los angles land in keokuk instead?

 

Ok.  My question still would be still be what is their destination success rate? or individual port success rate?   And is anyone aware of any website that compiles such data?  If the failure rate is still less than 1%, I would think that is pretty good.  Once again, that doesn't mean the four or five cruisers I mentioned earlier should not be upset.  I am just trying to get a feel for how common those situations actually occur.

[sanger727]

2 hours ago, Capitan Obvious said:

 

Using the airline model, it isn't accurate to ask about landing in Keokuk when the flight was to Los Angeles. An accurate comparison would be to say if I booked a flight from NY to LA with a stop in Phoenix, how often would they change it to a flight from NY to LA with a stop in Denver instead?

 

 

This isn't a good comparison.  No one flies to visit the airport of the connection. If cruising was all about the "destination" - then why bother taking 7 days to go from Miami just to end up back in Miami.  Seems like a terrible bother with all those connecting stops. 

[Capitan Obvious]

3 minutes ago, sanger727 said:

 

This isn't a good comparison.  No one flies to visit the airport of the connection. If cruising was all about the "destination" - then why bother taking 7 days to go from Miami just to end up back in Miami.  Seems like a terrible bother with all those connecting stops. 

 

I wasn't trying to make a good comparison. I was demonstrating the fallacy of the airline comparison raised in Post #111...perhaps you should have addressed that post instead.

 

BTW, there actually are people who fly to "visit the airport of the connection", if you aren't familar, just google "skiplagging".

[sanger727]

4 minutes ago, Capitan Obvious said:

 

I wasn't trying to make a good comparison. I was demonstrating the fallacy of the airline comparison raised in Post #111...perhaps you should have addressed that post instead.

 

BTW, there actually are people who fly to "visit the airport of the connection", if you aren't familar, just google "skiplagging".

 

That's not flying to visit the connecting airport.  That is changing your destination.  It's not longer a connection at that point.  And yes, think that if you chose do this with a philadelphia layover, and you ended up in Denver; you would be pretty upset about that. 

[Capitan Obvious]

19 minutes ago, sanger727 said:

 

That's not flying to visit the connecting airport.  That is changing your destination.  It's not longer a connection at that point.  And yes, think that if you chose do this with a philadelphia layover, and you ended up in Denver; you would be pretty upset about that. 

 

Doesn't that depend on whether or not the connecting airport IS your destination vs a place you are just visiting? Again, this just reinforces the fallacy raised in post #111 that I was commenting on in the first place. Is your issue with that post, or with my pointing out the lack of logic in that post?

[DCGuy64]

The point I was making is based on whether you get what you paid for in terms of travel, not whether the types of travel are identical or even substantially similar.

With an airline, you are paying to get from point A to point B at a certain time. With a cruise ship, assuming it’s a loop and not a one-way like a transatlantic or repositioning cruise, you are embarking and disembarking from the same port and visiting one or more ports along the way. I still say that if NCL visits the scheduled ports 99% of the time, that’s still better than most air carriers in terms of their on-time performance records.

 

[UKstages]

2 hours ago, hoops71 said:

My question still would be still be what is their destination success rate? or individual port success rate?   And is anyone aware of any website that compiles such data?  If the failure rate is still less than 1%, I would think that is pretty good.

 

less than 1% would be pretty good for certain issues of safety and security or internet uptime. not so, perhaps, for "destination success rate." here's why, in my opinion...

 

i think you're looking at this the wrong way. even if the rate is less than 1% (and i suspect it is somewhat higher), it's not about the 99% of guests who suffer no inconvenience and know nothing of port cancellations or route deviations. it's about the 1% that are inconvenienced by port cancellations and route deviations.

 

• are these bucket list dream ports?

• has the trip been planned for a year or more?

• has NCL provided meaningful compensation?

• did NCL knowingly withhold information until after final payment date?

 

if you are not one of the small number of folks who are inconvenienced, this is no problem, as is obvious by the indifferent tone of many of the comments in this thread. if you are one of those inconvenienced, the "inconvenience" is all-consuming, with costs, in many cases,  exceeding NCL's meager compensation. and the disappointment and regret becomes overwhelming. 

 

the percentage we really should be interested in is a measure of NCL's recidivist behavior. how often do they do the same thing over and over again, make the same port cancellation over and over again on the same itinerary, waiting each time until after final payment date for each cruise? my best guess is that percentage would be closer to 85% or 90%.

 

there was a period last year, as many folks know, where the prima missed every port call to isafjörður, iceland. it could be argued that NCL had a very good operational reason to miss that port week after week and that it was the port's fault. (some might argue otherwise.) but the point here is that NCL knew they weren't going to make a single visit to isafjörður that season, but they intentionally didn't notify most guests until they boarded that the port call had been canceled. that's simply not a responsible bsuiness practice and not a respectful way to treat your customers.

 

and, just a nomenclature thang... but it's not really a "failure" rate. failure is when you attempt something and don't succeed. NCL never tried to visit these ports. their modus operandi is to cancel them way ahead of time, but to choose to withhold that information from guests and continue to advertise fantasy itineraries online. it's more like a "deception and subterfuge" rate, if we're really keeping track of their achievements. 

 

Edited 1 hour ago by UKstages

[hoops71]

Fair enough.  I think I understand your reasoning.  I don't know if I agree with your 85 to 90% number, but the good people on this forum (heard that term somewhere😉) could rightfully disagree until we have actual hard data on the issue.

 

Unfortunately, any monitoring would have to start at the time at the time the cruise is first advertised to see how often it changed and the timing of their changing (before or after final payment).  This issue of "bucket list" ports versus regular ports is clearly subjective and I don't know if it could ever be agreed on. Although I will continue to fight anyone who claims Mazatlan is one!!!!!  I agree regarding the Iceland port.  Not necessarily NCL's fault they could not go there, but should make people aware of the issue.  Unless they were being led to believe it would be resolved soon.

 

The compilation of this data combined with some definitional issues sounds like a lot of work for somebody with more time than me.  Happy cruising to you and all!  Hope you make all you ports of choice.