My wife and I chose this cruise because we wanted to visit Amsterdam, Norway and Iceland. We were primed to go to Amsterdam, Norway and Iceland (the latter two for the first time). We are in our late 70's and this was perhaps our last chance to do this. We understand the elimination of the relevant ports doe safety reasons due to a hurricane. We do not understand why the port of La Havre was substituted in spite of the good weather in Amsterdam and why a La Havre was then bypassed in spite of good weather there. A Chinese tour group of 200 were given a refund. (Because of clout?). The Corporation's offer of a 25% discount on a future cruise, subject to our signing up with 2 years, was an insult, especially since very few of the 2200 passengers would probably have the means to take advantage and because the best way to compensate us would be to provide the discount on the this voyage. It shows bad faith and a primary interest to maintain profits. Why not simply give us the discount allowing for the company's break-even lever. We spent almost 6 days at sea on a very crowded ship + one port in Norway in which the entire town was shut down because it was off-season! We suffered greatly. Norwegian Cruise Line should not be making a profit off of us, period.

Service by lower level employees--excellent. Attitude of management--very poor (a judgment made independent of the problems. Dining--good. Cabins--good. Ports and shores excursions--terrible. Activities were poor and slanted toward money grabbing (such as expensive bingo games with the ship getting a great portion of the prize money) and activities were generally poor. If your ad says “Save up to 80%,” why do you want to give us only 25% on the next cruise we sign up for? There was almost a riot on the ship. Google the New York Times article regarding the Iceland trip in September 2019 for a pretty good rundown, although there was so much more to the chaos.