Guess what passengers are owed for a major change to their itinerary. Apparently, nothing.
Passengers on Norwegian Cruise Lines Norwegian Star bought a cruise that would include scenic cruising off the Antarctic mainland. But when they boarded the ship at Buenos Aires, Argentina, on January 31, they found in NCL’s mobile app that the promised routing near Antarctica had been cancelled.
“While we try to maintain original itineraries as much as possible, unfortunately, at times modifications are made to optimize the itinerary or to accommodate certain circumstances,” guests were told via the app. “As such, in order to enhance the guest experience, the itinerary has been revised.”
Passengers were understandably upset that the Antarctic scenic cruising—for many passengers what would have been a highlight, ostensibly what appealed most to them when they were choosing the sailing—was now cancelled. The name of the itinerary was even updated from a “South America and Antarctica” cruise to just “South America”.
One upset traveler has taken to TikTok to vent her frustrations. She and other passengers also reported the ship’s lobby being full of angry passengers who had to be corralled by a security officer after they were frustrated with the lack of response or explanation from the cruise line on why the scenic cruising was cancelled.
The New Zealand Herald reports that passengers had been told the ship was operating at slower speeds to meet regulatory requirements, so the scenic cruising at Paradise Bay was replaced with scenic cruising on Admiralty Bay, in Antarctica’s South Shetland Islands. The Herald also noted that the governing body for Antarctic tourism had put speed restrictions into effect for Antarctic waters for the protection of migratory whales, but that these restrictions had been announced years prior to the sailing.
Recommended Fodor’s Video
So, what happens when a cruise line doesn’t deliver on its planned itinerary?
According to NCL’s Guest Ticket Contract, which all cruisers agree to at the time of their cruise purchase, nothing. NCL’s contract with passengers allows it to change the routing of the ship for any reason. The only situation where passengers are due some recourse is if the voyage is cancelled or ends early because of a mechanical failure of the ship.
Such clauses exist because of the nature of maritime operations. Weather can be a significant impact to cruise operations, and ships can divert or change course for a variety of other reasons, such as medical emergencies onboard, to search for a passenger who has gone overboard, or to render aid to a vessel in distress.
In this case, NCL is citing regulatory reasons limiting the speed of the ship in Antarctic waters, but the New Zealand Herald also points to a 2017 article about the ship’s ongoing problems with its propulsion systems. Even in this instance, however, the ship’s passengers have little recourse, because the voyage is still proceeding—albeit with a substantial routing change.
In the case of a skipped port call, cruise lines will typically refund any shore excursions that have been purchased, and passengers may also be due a refund of any port taxes or fees that were collected with their cruise fare. While cruise lines don’t technically owe passengers compensation for a missed port call (NCL’s passenger ticket contract is pretty standard compared to its cruise industry peers), passengers can always address their concerns directly to the cruise line for consideration.
Travel insurance is also unlikely to provide any relief. Most travel insurance policies only cover trip cancellation (an entire trip is cancelled), trip delay, or trip interruption (a trip ends early). Some travel insurance policies do include a travel inconvenience benefit, including a specific benefit for a cruise diversion, but the policies we checked only provided the benefit if the diversion was due to weather, a medical incident involving a passenger, a terrorist incident, or a natural disaster—so they wouldn’t have applied in the situation experienced by the passengers onboard Norwegian Star.
But what about the passengers who haven’t yet sailed? NCL has also announced that Norwegian Star’s next few sailings will also have their itineraries altered. Can those passengers file a claim with their insurance?
That’s not likely either. The insurance policies are specific in their coverage, and most of their coverages address the traveler’s inability to take a trip or need to interrupt it. As far as the cruise line and travel insurers are concerned, the sailing is still happening—just not in the original form the cruise line used to market and sell cabins on.
Cruise passengers can also take comfort in the fact that while cruise lines can alter their itineraries without recompense per their passage contracts, it’s not lost on them that it’s not the best way to win passenger goodwill, so they do their best to avoid it.
For the passengers on Norwegian Star, whose Antarctica cruise no longer includes Antarctica, that’s certainly cold comfort.
The Antarctica craze is ridiculous. Paying huge amounts for what you could see in South New Zealand, parts of Iceland and. more. But people will jump on any bandwagon. (And then come home claiming they care about the environment and animals....)
This article is patently incorrect from the get go. Passengers could not have boarded the Norwegian Star in Buenos Aires on January 31 as it was at sea on that date. I know because I was on board and sailing in Antarctica. The Star sailed from Buenos Aires on January 21 and returned on February 4. Check your facts.
we were on that ship in June 2022. I'm not sure about propulsion issues going back to 2017, but our cruise went on as scheduled. that being sad, I think Norwegian cruise lines should offer some kind of compensation to make up for the disappointment of hundreds of passengers. I would say give them at least on board credit of $200.
Further proof that marketing departments should be abolished, and companies should focus on how to pleae the customer, not give them the shaft. For anyone who has been to Antarctica, the ONLY way to enhance the trip is to stay there longer. A barren, dirt island (Admiralty bay on St George's) 300 miles north of Lemaire Channel is NOT the real Antarctica, even though in "official" terms it is below 60 degrees south. And even though the Falklands has King Penguins, we travel to Antarctica to see the ice bergs, ice sheets, ten thousand foot mountains, and such crystal clear air that 40 miles of visibility looks like 4! Let's hope that NCL's CFO was trained as a Chartered Accountant, so he understands the costs which CANNOT be measured if they fail to pay compensation.
While its true the cruise line can change the itinerary at will, i would imagine that they still need to provide just cause - a reasonable explanaition. I don't think you can waive your common law rights for receiving a service thatyou didn't pay for. I can understand that an itinerary change due to weather, security, mechanical issues would be easily understood, but if NCL decided to save say over $1million dollares in fuel by not travelling the extra 400Km distance, or they were restriced to travel there due to a regulatory infringmenet, is not something passeneger should silently accept. The problem is NCL wont state why all their cruises (this summer) are not going to mainland Antarctica. This suggests that disclossing the real reaon would result in a real crisis for NCL