cruise ship passengers left behind

Norwegian Cruise Line

Family of nine left behind in remote Alaska, charged $9K by Norwegian Cruise Lines

By mnocket , July 17 in Norwegian Cruise Line

Link to comment

Share on other sites.

CILCIANRQTS

1 hour ago, dexddd said: On ABC news now, coming up.

When’s the last time missing the ship was worthy of national news exposure? I’m seeing a BIG lawsuit here.

All this has me wondering, when the ship is missing some passengers does the ship try to call them on the emergency contact phone number they have on file? Do they check to see if those missing were on a ship sponsored excursion?

In my experience, the all aboard time is at least 30 minutes before departure time. That would be time enough to call the missing passengers and find out where they are.

I would hope the NCL vendor in charge of that excursion will no longer be used by NCL.

Also, from what I've read, NCL wasn't handling this situation very well until the news media got involved.

1 hour ago, tony s said: Simple for all don’t use that tour operator again

They went to a show in town, it’s not really a tour. They probably did it on their own and just missed the bus. We will never know the real story.

11 minutes ago, zqvol said: They went to a show in town, it’s not really a tour. They probably did it on their own and just missed the bus. We will never know the real story.

It's an established fact that they purchased the Lumberjack show as an NCL excursion. That's probably why NCL has taken care of the issues.

2 hours ago, CILCIANRQTS said: When’s the last time missing the ship was worthy of national news exposure? I’m seeing a BIG lawsuit here.

You're right. NCL should sue.

1 hour ago, Oakman58 said: All this has me wondering, when the ship is missing some passengers does the ship try to call them on the emergency contact phone number they have on file? Do they check to see if those missing were on a ship sponsored excursion?

Yes, and they did.

And if you listen to the news media, nothing on Earth ever gets handled well until they get involved. That's one reason why I quit trusting them long ago, and they continually verify that was the correct choice.

Good stuff thanks for the information!

On the June 8, 2024 Bliss cruise some people waiting 1hour 40 min for space on a bus - now - that said - the ship actually did not depart until 150p because of the bus problem. . . .

24 minutes ago, erisajd said: On the June 8, 2024 Bliss cruise some people waiting 1hour 40 min for space on a bus - now - that said - the ship actually did not depart until 150p because of the bus problem. . . .

Yep, I'm glad I took RCL to Alaska, we were in town in Ketchikan.

In Juneau we were at the far dock,expecting a wait for the shuttle and it was still a few blocks to walk to catch it, walked out of a store a cab was sitting right there...I've wasted $10 on less.

azappraiser

On 7/18/2024 at 5:04 AM, Maleficent's Dad said: For those saying NCL doesn’t promise to wait for you, their website says differently for shore excursions:

And to quote the first few paragraphs of the Terms & Conditions:

"The transportation of passengers and baggage is governed by the terms and conditions of the Guest Ticket Contract contained in the Passenger Cruise Ticket. Your acceptance of the Guest Ticket Contract and acceptance of passage on the vessel constitute acceptance of the terms, conditions and information contained in this brochure and the Guest Ticket Contract . The Guest Ticket Contract contains information that affects your legal rights, and we recommend you read the terms carefully.

Norwegian Cruise Line also recommends that all guests review the Additional Terms and Conditions listed below.

Norwegian Cruise Line is not responsible or liable for typographical errors, omissions or misprints. Norwegian Cruise Line further reserves the right to correct or amend the brochure or website. This web page may be withdrawn by Norwegian Cruise Line at any time, in its sole discretion, without notice to any party."

At some point in time people have to be responsible for their own actions.

2 hours ago, Oakman58 said: It's an established fact that they purchased the Lumberjack show as an NCL excursion. That's probably why NCL has taken care of the issues.

Well said and you are 100% correct. NCL has rightly owned their mistake and have done all that they can do. We applaud that. Most fair minded cruises get it, but their are few that may not be able to wrap their heads around NCL ever making a mistake. It is always the passengers fault.

NCL makes plenty of mistakes, but they didn't this time. They are not responsible for passengers not getting on the bus back to the ship. They adhered to policy. If passengers on an NCL excursion cannot make it back, and the ship can no longer wait, they take ownership for getting them to the next port, which they tried to do. But, since the passengers didn't take their passports with them, that couldn't be done. So they went home, and NCL is covering that. NCL did nothing wrong here, but the passengers did to at least some extent. Obviously the excursion operator really screwed up, and they bear the brunt of the blame. I would question the timing of the phone calls the passengers made. It should have been obvious they wouldn't make it back on time, so I have to wonder why NCL didn't go into their cabin to get their passports, and give them to the port agent. I thought that was standard practice. I would also question how long it took NCL to figure all this out. Communication is not their strong suit, so I imagine a lot of confusion and head scratching on their part. But I learned long ago to never, ever trust news reporting on stuff like this.

3 minutes ago, omahabob said: I would question the timing of the phone calls the passengers made. It should have been obvious they wouldn't make it back on time, so I have to wonder why NCL didn't go into their cabin to get their passports, and give them to the port agent. I thought that was standard practice. I would also question how long it took NCL to figure all this out. Communication is not their strong suit, so I imagine a lot of confusion and head scratching on their part. But I learned long ago to never, ever trust news reporting on stuff like this.

From the sketchy info given (yes, there are some gaps in the story), NCL tried to call, nobody answered. NCL did apparently go to get their passports but were not able to locate all of them. NCL only knew they weren't on the ship, as far as NCL knew they hadn't returned (NCL excursion or not). NCL waits for the bus to return, no guarantees if you aren't on the excursion bus when it returns.

Gotta wonder why just this group of 9 - out of probably hundreds of passengers on multiple busses/tours - missed "the" bus. It's been awhile since I took one of the Lumberjack excursions but I'm pretty sure we were assigned busses and there were people directing passengers to "their" bus. So did "their" bus leave without them (and 9 empty seats) because they were late for returning, did people not on the tour get on the bus - the shuttle usually stops running quite a bit before all-aboard. Or some combination of the above.

@luv2kroooz I am in no way absolving the tour operator of blame, I am holding judgement on what, if any, responsibility falls on the family, not sure what NCL could have done differently under the circumstances. Hindsight and all of that.

21 minutes ago, omahabob said: NCL makes plenty of mistakes, but they didn't this time. They are not responsible for passengers not getting on the bus back to the ship. They adhered to policy. If passengers on an NCL excursion cannot make it back, and the ship can no longer wait, they take ownership for getting them to the next port, which they tried to do. But, since the passengers didn't take their passports with them, that couldn't be done. So they went home, and NCL is covering that. NCL did nothing wrong here, but the passengers did to at least some extent. Obviously the excursion operator really screwed up, and they bear the brunt of the blame. I would question the timing of the phone calls the passengers made. It should have been obvious they wouldn't make it back on time, so I have to wonder why NCL didn't go into their cabin to get their passports, and give them to the port agent. I thought that was standard practice. I would also question how long it took NCL to figure all this out. Communication is not their strong suit, so I imagine a lot of confusion and head scratching on their part. But I learned long ago to never, ever trust news reporting on stuff like this.

NCL did hand over passports, but missed one

26 minutes ago, omahabob said: NCL makes plenty of mistakes, but they didn't this time.

Ummm. It has been reported that NCL did not leave the proper passports with the port agent which created problems. Details, details.

1 minute ago, julig22 said: Gotta wonder why just this group of 9 - out of probably hundreds of passengers on multiple busses/tours - missed "the" bus. It's been awhile since I took one of the Lumberjack excursions but I'm pretty sure we were assigned busses and there were people directing passengers to "their" bus. So did "their" bus leave without them (and 9 empty seats) because they were late for returning, did people not on the tour get on the bus - the shuttle usually stops running quite a bit before all-aboard.

The story is that the bus operator wasn't checking those boarding, so by the time it got to these 9, they were told to wait for next bus-clearly a cluster** on the part of the bus driver

3 minutes ago, julig22 said: Gotta wonder why just this group of 9 - out of probably hundreds of passengers on multiple busses/tours - missed "the" bus.

Wonder no more. It has been reported over and again that they did not miss any bus. They returned to the bus timely but were directed to wait for the next bus due to overcrowding. They had no reason to not comply with the direction. The next bus never showed up.

1 minute ago, luv2kroooz said: Ummm. It has been reported that they did not leave the proper passports with the port agent which created problems. Details, details.

Details, yes. More likely that they couldn't find...

2 minutes ago, julig22 said: Details, yes. More likely that they couldn't find...

Ahhh, you've lost me with the implication that they couldn't find a passport. That has not been reported anywhere, including by NCL. Adios, mate! Have a good life.

12 minutes ago, luv2kroooz said: Ummm. It has been reported that NCL did not leave the proper passports with the port agent which created problems. Details, details.

I wouldn't classify that as their mistake if they couldn't find them all. The passengers should have had them. That brings up another point. Many passengers don't take passports ashore if they aren't in a foreign country. But if the next port is in a foreign country, as was the case here, they should still be taken. Does anyone know if NCL informs people of this point? All my port visits have been foreign ports, so that nuance never came up.

2 minutes ago, omahabob said: I wouldn't classify that as their mistake if they couldn't find them all. The passengers should have had them. That brings up another point. Many passengers don't take passports ashore if they aren't in a foreign country. But if the next port is in a foreign country, as was the case here, they should still be taken. Does anyone know if NCL informs people of this point? All my port visits have been foreign ports, so that nuance never came up.

I'm not sure that NCL recommends that you take your passport with you unless you need it for your current port- that tends to be a personal choice, as many consider leaving it on the ship to be a safer option. But you should ALWAYS leave it in your safe if you leave it on the ship. That's where the crew will look if they need to get it to you.

6 minutes ago, omahabob said: I wouldn't classify that as their mistake if they couldn't find them all. The passengers should have had them. That brings up another point. Many passengers don't take passports ashore if they aren't in a foreign country. But if the next port is in a foreign country, as was the case here, they should still be taken. Does anyone know if NCL informs people of this point? All my port visits have been foreign ports, so that nuance never came up.

After having my passport stolen by a pickpocket while ashore, mine never leaves the ship any longer.

1 minute ago, julig22 said: I'm not sure that NCL recommends that you take your passport with you unless you need it for your current port- that tends to be a personal choice, as many consider leaving it on the ship to be a safer option. But you should ALWAYS leave it in your safe if you leave it on the ship. That's where the crew will look if they need to get it to you.

Good tip. But I think it would be a good thing if they warned people about this type of scenario.

1 minute ago, zqvol said: After having my passport stolen by a pickpocket while ashore, mine never leaves the ship any longer.

One would have to weigh the possibilities, a stolen passport vs maybe being stranded without it. Mine stays in a location where a pickpocket couldn't really get it, as does my cash and a single credit card, so I opt to not leave it on the ship. Out of curiosity, where were you when you were pick pocketed?