 |
| Norwegian Cruise Lines - Norwegian Dawn - Copyright Andy Richards 2023 - All Rights Reserved |
IN EARLY April, 8 Norwegian Dawn cruise ship (NCL) passengers missed the "all aboard" time due to a late return to the port with a private excursion. As I read about this incident, we were just days away from a 21 - day visit to Japan, including 14 days aboard the HAL Westerdam. This episode is a little too close for comfort for me, and I felt compelled to blog about it.
BACK IN January of 2022, we were on an Oceania Cruise Ship (Nautica), also in South Africa. At one of our stops, we joined another couple for a "safari" excursion in one of the animal parks accessible from the port of Richards Bay, South Africa. The park was nearly an hour and a half from the port. The excursion involved some logistics, as there was a driver who picked us up from the ship and delivered us back at the end. Once in the park, we were handed off to another driver and guide for the open jeep vehicles we used to drive the park roads. Nice day. All was well. Until the end of the day, when it became very apparent to me that there were some communications issues between the "team members." By my calculations we were not going to be back at the port by the "all aboard" time. We contacted some friends we knew were aboard and they went directly to the administration desk, who promptly called my wife (it was her and her phone that was on their emergency contact information). We confirmed that we would be 15 minutes late for the "all aboard" time - and it turns out we were exactly 15 minutes late. When we arrived at the ship, the boarding stairs were still down, and they were apparently waiting for us. We were still at least 15 minutes before the ship was scheduled to pull away from the pier. Once back on the ship, there were never any further communications from ship officials, so we really do not know if, or how much, we may have contributed to a late departure, but it seemed to us that we pulled away right on time. Lots to "unpack here," so stay with me.
. . . it became very apparent to me that there were some communications issues between the "team members.
I AM enrolled on a handful of cruise line and cruise ship boards on Facebook. Reading comments about the NCL incident, It is clear that the overwhelming response (from the small sampling on Facebook) is: "their fault; should have known better." We are all entitled to our opinion. I never cease to be amazed, though, by the level of uninformed commenters. It's fine to weigh in, but if you plan to, maybe at least do some research and read or listen to some other accounts, including news and interviews? It is obvious from reading many of the FB comments that the commenters had not even read a brief news account of what actually happened. But they had opinion. Oh, they had opinions! 😏 Things like: "trying to blame the cruise ship for your own failure." Well, nothing in the objective reporting I read (or the comments of the involved passengers that I watched and listened to) even remotely suggests or tries to shift the blame to the cruise ship. Another "doozy" was: ". . . trying to save a few pennies by doing a third party instead of the ship-sponsored excursion." I have news for the commenter. "Saving pennies" is rarely, - if ever - the reason for most people engaging private operators. And the cost of private operators is often (if not mostly) an equivalent, or even higher cost. The cruiseline - sponsored excursions are often limited to what they decide to offer and are frequently already sold out by the time people even book cruises. Not to mention that in our experience, they are rarely even close to a good as a tour by a well-prepared private excursion. And another: "the ship provides an emergency number . . . they should have called." Um ... they did (but you just spouted off your opinion, feeling no need to read news accounts or have any other factual basis). 😐
The question here (in my mind) is whether what was happening, was legitimately based on schedule, port fee penalties, a dangerous situation, tide issues; or if decision-makers were just being unreasonable?
I am going to take a contrary point of view. I have read numerous news accounts, and watched a couple You-Tube videos containing actual soundbites of a couple of the passengers who were involved. Here's the thing. Most of us are crystal-clear on whose responsibility it is when a return to the ship in any instance (except a cruise-sponsored tour) goes awry. That isn't really the point here at all (and if you are one who is so inclined - before you get things "in a wad," in our own situation, we were fully aware that we were "on our own." We knew it was a private tour and we knew the risks. There was never a thought on our part of holding anyone but ourselves ultimately responsible, had we missed the ship). There is a world of difference, in my view though, between assigning blame (again, I have not seen any indication of that being the case by the NCL passengers) and exercising common sense, having some empathy for a difficult situation, and just being reasonable. The question here (in my mind) is whether what was happening, was legitimately based on schedule, port fee penalties, tide issues, a dangerous situation; or if decision-makers were just being unreasonable?
There was never a thought on our part of holding anyone but ourselves ultimately responsible
SOME INFORMATION (more objective than what we read on FB 😉) regarding the current situation might help with context. The information (I won't go so far as to assert they are "facts") below is based on news coverage and interviews with one of the couples who were probably responsible for making this story go national. This was a privately operated excursion involving 8 ship passengers that ran late. News accounts note that one of them was a paraplegic, one was pregnant, and another had a known heart condition. It was a day-excursion, so logically, they had all left their medications aboard (and I believe the ship officials knew this). According to the couple, they attempted to call the ship's emergency number, but the call did not go through. They emailed the ship, but the ship did not respond to the emails. They emailed NCL, who directed them to email the ship. Something maybe not so factual: according to one of the passengers the harbormaster attempted to call the ship and the ship "refused" the call (while I cannot verify this independently, it is hard for me to imagine a ship in port refusing a harbormaster's call - so this one may be suspect). But it is an allegation that was made. The point is: All of these communications failed. Whatever the reasons, why should that stand in the way of a reasonable and emphathetic response to the situation?
APPARENTLY, THIS stop did not have a deepwater port and the ship was anchored out, with passengers being tendered back and forth. The 8 passengers missed the last tender back. According to one (NBC) news account, the ship had not yet pulled anchor. Another (ABC) news account quotes a "cruise expert:" "More than likely that the anchor was already up, and the ship was already possibly moving," he said. He continued, "Any operation at that point to get these passengers back on the ship would have caused tremendous delays, and safety would have been a major concern." I don't see any indication (nor does he give any) of how he would have known or verified that statement, so in my mind that is conjecture on his part. Unfortunately, it adds to the murkiness of the story. To the best of my knowledge, NCL has not done or said anything to address this point, though some clarity might be helpful. I can see that trying to board passenger while the ship was moving, or even had pulled anchor, could be difficult and dangerous. But if still at anchor, I am not sure how it would be any different than the tender operations that had been going on all day. Maybe a difference in the boats. Hopefully we will be enlightened by further accounts, because at this point it looks like simple intransigence on the part of the ship crew.
THE LOCAL Coast Guard tendered all 8 passengers out to the (presumably) still at-anchor ship. For reasons that - based on the accounts from the passengers and the NBC news story - I find unfathomable, they were refused boarding. In its in-my-view, lame statement, NCL officials say that this incident was "unfortunate," but the passengers (who they specifically noted, were on a private excursion not operated by NCL) were responsible to get back to the ship by the all-aboard time. They also accurately pointed out that this time was well-publicized before passengers left the ship that day. No comment was made about whether the ship was still at anchor, or the potential danger of boarding the 8 passengers.
Does the heavy-handed "message" deter us from booking private excursions. Again, the answer here is absolutely not! Our experience is - altogether too often - that the cruise-ship sponsored tours are just not very well done
THERE ARE several factors that bear on a cruise ship captain's decision to leave a port. Port fees are substantial, and there can be large financial penalties for overstaying, not to mention the inconvenience potentially caused to incoming vessels. Sometimes arrival and departure is governed by the tide conditions. It is certainly possible that either (or both) those items were pressuring the ship to pull anchor and leave. But at the time, they had not done so, including, apparently at the time when the coast guard boat brought the passengers to the ship. One person on one of the FB pages asserted that there had been a problem with the tender port on the ship (no source quoted for that, and it was the first and only place I read that or heard it). That didn't seem to stop them from boarding all but the 8 stragglers though. Notably to me, NCL has never (to the best of my knowledge) offered a public explanation of the incident citing any of the "factors" I speculated on above.
IN THEIR favor, at least according to their official spokesperson, NCL was working with shore officials in the African countries involved to assist the passengers with getting to the next stop to re-board: "Our team has been working closely with the local authorities to understand the requirements and necessary visas needed for the guests to rejoin the ship at the next available port of call . . ." They also said they were in touch with the passengers in order to orchestrate them re-boarding the ship in Senegal, a couple stops in front of them. However, another local news cast reported that several of the 8 had indicated that in spite of trying to reach the ship, they had not heard back.
ABC NEWS also reported a statement from NCL that: "In light of the "series of unfortunate events outside of our control," the spokesperson said Norwegian Cruise Lines "will be reimbursing these eight guests for their travel costs from Banjur, Gambia to Dakar, Senegal."
SOME THINGS just do not add up for me here. It seems a bit incongruous that if the ship was at anchor that the Captain would refuse to board these passengers, regardless of the "all aboard" time. At the same time, they are reimbursing them for their expenses? Hmmn.
I AM one of those curmudgeons who constantly point out that our society has abandoned the concept of personal responsibility in favor of the "it's always somebody else's fault" approach. That doesn't mean I think we ought to discard any semblance of reasonableness or empathy. In the larger scheme, these passengers had ultimate control of the situation by virtue of the fact that they could decide to avail themselves of private tour groups (or not). In the smaller and more realistic picture, these passengers were involved in a situation over which they really had no control. What's more, the cruise ship knew that. They were still there. Presumably, still at anchor. There was no reason they should not have allowed their passengers to board the ship - except their given reason: "rules are rules."
Was this (someone at - perhaps the ship Captain) NCL's ham-fisted attempt to "send a message"?
LET'S ASSUME for the moment that we all agree that they are technically correct. The all-aboard time was set well in advance. There is little doubt, either contractually, or among those of us who are seasoned cruisers. The responsibility is on the passenger to return to the ship on time, and under normal circumstances, they should not be owed anything. The time for the last tender was clearly posted both on the ship and on the shore. Still, to me their extreme reaction and position simply doesn't justify their decision (and the fact that they are reimbursing the passengers for their expenses to rejoin the ship just bolsters that in my mind). The optics of this event are terrible for NCL, in my view. It makes them appear unreasonably rigid about non-life affecting "rules," in an almost petty fashion. The fact that they specifically point out in their statement (on its own, a bad look for them - making them seem petty) that this was not an excursion operated by NCL, leads me to a pretty obvious observation: Was this (someone at - perhaps the ship Captain) NCL's ham-fisted attempt to "send a message" to those of us who freely use private excursion services (and/or those service-providers)?
IT IS well-known that all the cruise lines offer ship-sponsored excursions. They all make it clear in their contracts and in other published literature, that while they guarantee a ship-sponsored excursion participant will never be left behind, they make equally clear that they will not wait for passengers who are late for other reasons (like private tours and self-tours on shore). I get that. It is really a policy they have to have in place, or there would essentially be no schedule. It is equally apparent that in virtually every one of these instances, we are talking about a tiny fraction of the cruise passengers who may well be inconveniencing the vast majority of others who rely on the ship schedule. None of that is unreasonable and in fairness, is generally necessary.
The optics of this . . . are terrible for NCL
BUT WHAT about when the action taken in deviation from the policy really doesn't inconvenience those other passengers? Like when the ship has not left the port yet, and allowing the passengers to board would really not be a large inconvenience - especially in light of the major inconvenience caused to those passengers as they scramble to try to catch the ship at the next port - without the benefit of any of their personal items.
IRONICALLY, NCL is the owner of our South Africa Cruise Line: Oceania. Had the Nautica's captain been as rigid (and in my view unreasonable) as the Norwegian Dawn captain appears to have been, we would have been in the same situation.
Adding insult to injury, enroute, the captain determined that he would not be able to stop at our next port. If we had been able to get transportation, we might not have even known this, causing even further angst. Like the passengers here, we had only our day-needs with us (in our case, credit cards, ship pass, and passport). In some cases, we have had ships advise us that there is no need to carry our passports off the ship, and we generally don't in those cases (though we usually do have a photocopy and picture of them on our phones). That could make any travel arrangements a ticklish situation.
What about when the action taken in deviation from the policy really doesn't inconvenience those other passengers?
OVER THE years, we have never cruised on NCL. But we certainly never had ruled them out. We like to look at itineraries, and like other lines, there are places NCL goes that other cruise lines do not. We also have some relatives who cruise on NCL when they go. If I were fortunate enough to speak with someone at NCL who could make a difference, there are two questions I would like to ask - and answer for them. First, while we had been perhaps "lukewarm" about booking with them in the past (though we did book with Oceania), would we now be likely to book an NCL cruise? The answer to that is now a resounding no. In speaking to other cruisers we know, it appears we are not alone in that conclusion. Very bad optics: Norwegian.
SECOND, DOES the heavy-handed "message" deter us from booking private excursions. Again, the answer here is absolutely not! Our experience is - altogether too often - that the cruise-ship sponsored tours are just not very well done. Most of them on mainline ships like the Norwegian Dawn operate 60+ passenger busloads of participants. The excursions involve a radio/headphone system and following your group leader holding up a sign. There is very little interaction. We have also experienced so-called tour leaders who really aren't very knowledgeable about the subject matter. Private tours allow us to go in smaller groups (ours have been anywhere from 12 to just 4 of us, with the smaller ones being the norm for us). This gets us near one-on-one contact with our guide. The guides for these companies are generally local residents, are very knowledgeable of the area, its culture and its history, and are both engage and engaging). They often get us "skip the line" entry and into places where the larger groups just cannot go. Our private tours have always been very enriching. We have only had the one experience in South Africa that was a true close-call. Yet all parties in that situation approached it in a reasonable way. Most of the private companies and guides make a living doing this. The last thing they want is a reputation for not getting passengers back on time. In our experience they go out of their way to do that.
NCL should have been "the adults in the room"
WE ALL know the old saying, "shit happens." In most situations, the best approach is to be calm and reasonable. I would say that should have applied here. It doesn't appear that it did. That is a real shame on numerous counts. I know there probably is more to this story than we get from public accounts. If I am proven wrong, I will come back here and amend my comments. But at this point, I have seen enough to convince me that even though the passengers were technically "at fault," there is blame enough to go around. And NCL should have been the adults in the room! I don't think they were.
