Testing the Waters with Dori: The NCL Stranded Passenger “Fiasco”

Unless you’ve been living under a rock over the past couple of days, your news feeds have probably been full of the story of Norwegian Cruise Line leaving eight passengers behind on “an African island” after they arrived late from an independent excursion.

The cruise line is getting crucified in the consumer press, with articles emphasizing that one of the passengers was pregnant, that an elderly man was left without his heart medication, and that a ninth passenger was also left behind after she had a stroke.

Articles point out that the ship – Norwegian Dawn – was still anchored near the island of Sao Tome and Principe, and could have let the passengers back onboard. (The port is a tender port, and tender service had concluded more than an hour prior to the passengers’ return.)

While most articles have mentioned the cruise line’s policy, which makes it very clear that passengers will be left behind if they miss final boarding, the mentions have been little more than lip service. Instead the cruise line has been accused of abandoning its duty of care, of having no humanity, and of being immoral.

I’m going to go out on a limb here and assume that most TMR readers agree that NCL did the right thing in leaving the passengers behind. (Please, let me know if you disagree!)

So, why am I writing about this?

Sadly, I think the entire incident and subsequent press coverage does a disservice to travel advisors.

On the more obvious side, bad press like this – even if the press is, quite frankly, wrong – can make it more difficult to convince first-time cruisers to give a cruise a try. Worries about being left behind can make an already hesitant traveler more decisive.

Less obvious to me is the message that’s turning up across the comment sections on most of these articles, and in social media. That message? That cruisers should always take a ship-sponsored shore excursion.

I don’t think that’s a true statement at all, and I think it hurts travel advisors, making it more difficult for them to sell third-party excursions.

Yes, there are benefits to taking a ship-sponsored tour, but these tours are usually more expensive and more crowded. And, unless excursions are included in the cruise fare, ship-sponsored excursions don’t benefit travel advisors as there’s no commission on them.

On the other hand, there are third-party excursion suppliers that pay commission and – more importantly in the context of this conversation – offer the exact same guarantee that cruise lines offer: guests will be returned to their ship on time or the excursion company will be responsible for the cost and logistics of getting guests to their ship at the next port of call.

I haven’t seen any comments or social media posts talking about this. Instead, everything I’ve read or heard has focused on how these NCL guests were on an independent excursion, which is a bad thing, and no one should ever do it.

And that’s not a message I like seeing out there.

Of course, there’s a place for ship-sponsored excursions, especially in destinations where the local tour operators might not be held to the same standards. In some of these destinations, it’s entirely possible that no independent operators offer the same guarantee as ship-sponsored tours.

But that’s part of what travel advisors can do for their clients. Find out what the options are, then make recommendations that are in the client’s best interest. Hopefully, advisors are getting paid a service fee to do this research and make the recommendations, or getting a commission when third-party excursions make sense. But that’s not possible if there’s never even a discussion and clients go ahead and book the cruise line excursions every time.

What do you think? What’s your take on the entire situation? Do you sell third-party excursions? Do you think this will make it more difficult for you? Email me at dsaltzman@travelmarketreport.com and let me know your thoughts.