Sensual Cruise on Quest.

There was an article (not advert) about this cruise in this weeks Sunday Times.

If you didn't know you wouldn't know it was a charter.

You may like to be aware that on Azamara the staff are not made to serve the customers on theses cruises, they are told they may opt out of their duties if they wish. We had a long discussion with a senior member of staff recently concerning how these cruises are operated and it is clear that AZ take the welfare of their crew very seriously.

So where do these crew members go? I don't think they would be put up in a hotel with room and board until the cruise is over and I can't believe Azamara will transfer these crew members to other ships just for this cruise. I also don't see crew members who opt out staying in there rooms for the entire cruise.

Please explain how Azamara plans to handle this?

Much ado about nothing.

Not sure what the fuss is about. Men and women together in their cabin? Clothing optional rooms? Potential to catch cooties?

IMHO there is a much greater risk on a "party" boat such as Carnival than on a ship run by Azamara. We have seen many and even taken excursions with same-sex couples, who are generally well-off and can afford Azamara, are very intelligent and good conversationalists, and in general are ubiquitous on AZ and other high end cruise lines. Is that worse than "clothing optional" on a cruise you are not on? In 2014 we embarked Journey in Mumbai and novovirius was brought onboard. The captain and crew were very concerned with eradicating it and were successful halfway on the 17-day trip to Piraeus. Is the potential for contracting a "disease" in India, China or Africa of less concern? We all use public toilets and sleep in hotel beds despite not knowing who previously used or slept there.

That said, I am NOT a "naturalist" and have no desire to see middle aged people nekked and I'm sure that they have no interest in seeing me. Plus, my medications have made me "sun sensitive" so it would be unhealthy for me to go "au naturale." But then, "naturalist" don't do that to look at others. So, I would not sign up for an FKK adventure. Lots of central Europeans enjoy "nature." Just read that there are many dedicated "clothing optional" walking trails and hundreds of "naturalist" beaches across North America.

I have no issues with naturists, but this sounds like it is more than that. "With adult playrooms, couple only cruise which encourages 'mingling' adult themed activities, sensual evenings" sounds more like a glorified up-market rave to me. I agree it definitely cheapens the brand as well as demeans the lovely hardworking staff who have no option but to work otherwise what else will they do for the duration as I'm sure Azamara won't pay them to sit this one out?

Agree. Plus these are not the imagined "swingers" cruises. Many Central Europeans enjoy, as appropriate, "clothing optional" activities. The former Yugoslav Adriatic coast has many FKK (German for clothing "free") resorts which are very popular. Germans also have "clothing optional" hiking clubs. In general, very healthy and fit people. My experience with AZ is that they are extremely health conscious. This is no different than staying in a hotel...

You may want to do a bit of research. This is the "imagined swingers cruise" (emphasis added). This doesn't come across as anywhere near the same as clothing optional hiking or kayaking. The gallery they display should also dispel any notion that this is just a clothing optional cruise (gallery could be considered NSFW).

From the website of the promoters:

Our luxurious program has been conceived to ensure a truly original experience by providing exclusive amenities such as: clothing-optional areas, private playrooms, adult-oriented entertainment & provocative theme nights, exquisite gourmet culinary experiences, as well as, sensual & sophisticated staterooms, all of which stay true to our erotic, clothing-optional, couples-only collection.

There have been clothing optional naturist cruises in the past but this is way different, and a copy of the Hedonistic resort in the Caribbean.

Here is a link to an Australian news report http://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-ideas/the-azamara-quest-by-the-original-group-is-launching-its-firstever-desire-cruise-to-sail-along-the-adriatic-sea/news-story/825fc1703f7fb0a139e1a8a2bf93e5f8

Note the picture of Quest with the caption "Azamara Quest is a couples only, clothes optional ship" this charter for which we had a cruise cancelled is in our opinion a bad move for Azamara. It maybe perceived as good business for the bottom line in the short term but could cost Azamara passengers in the long term.

Sent from my iPad using Forums

There have been clothing optional naturist cruises in the past but this is way different, and a copy of the Hedonistic resort in the Caribbean.

Here is a link to an Australian news report http://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-ideas/the-azamara-quest-by-the-original-group-is-launching-its-firstever-desire-cruise-to-sail-along-the-adriatic-sea/news-story/825fc1703f7fb0a139e1a8a2bf93e5f8

 

Note the picture of Quest with the caption "Azamara Quest is a couples only, clothes optional ship" this charter for which we had a cruise cancelled is in our opinion a bad move for Azamara. It maybe perceived as good business for the bottom line in the short term but could cost Azamara passengers in the long term.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

I agree. This cruise sounds more like a sexual free for all. :eek: :rolleyes: :mad:

Since booking my upcoming clothing required cruise, I've told friends a lot about why I chose Azamara. In essence, it's a classy, boutique experience. I sure haven't amended that to say, Oh, and they do sensual, swingers cruises too. This goes too far beyond clothing optional to have any class at all. Bad move for Azamara unless they plan to make this their identity.

Interesting posts.

The decision to let this group charter Quest is one that was obviously well discussed and considered by Azamara and its parent RCCL. They then made a financial decision good for the company. Something with their rights. If it bothers, then fly some other line. We have no intention of canceling the follow-on cruise, to which Azamara added a day in Venice at no additional cost, because some people enjoy a different lifestyle.

Made me look! :)

Apparently this is a $450million business for cruise lines. These groups/companies are chartering whole large ships such as Celebrity Silhouette. Carnival and Holland America, and presumably their subsidiaries, are all "doing it."

From the Orlando Sentinel:

The number of nude cruises increased from one 500-passenger ship in 1992 to 45 cruises and 30,000 people in 2010, the American Association for Nude Recreation says. Thirty percent of those people are first-time nudist cruisers.

Clothing-optional tourism does $400 million to $450 million in business annually, the group says — more than double the amount in the early 1990s.

"We had a record year in 2014, and we're growing," said Donna Daniels, co-owner of Castaways Travel in The Woodlands, Texas, who has spent 31 years in the travel business.

Companies like Castaways and Bliss charter the boats from big cruise lines like Celebrity Cruises, Carnival Cruise Line and Holland America Line. The trips, for the most part, are like any other cruise, except for the attire.

"The people who do this are very confident people in high stress jobs, and they're successful," Daniels said. "They want to get so far away from everything and don't even want the stress of clothes."

Daniels lists bank CEOs and federal agents among her customers.

Tiemann said 70 percent of her customers return for another cruise, higher than the industry average of about 62 percent.

Today, she said, more people are finding the clothes-free experience to be a "stress reliever and equalizer," as egos are checked at the door along with the clothing. "It's much more than just taking our clothes off."

That might be especially true on November's Bliss Cruise.

The adults-only cruise is marketed to "swinger couples, nudists, voyeurs and exhibitionists," according to its website, blisscruise.com.

Its nightly themed extravaganzas will include a Roman Orgy Toga Party and, in lieu of formal night, an AntiFormal and ABC (Anything But Clothes).

"Duct tape, Saran wrap, feathers … get creative and come ready to play," the website says.

The cruise, departing Nov. 29 aboard the Celebrity Silhouette, is geared toward "sexually-open and adventurous" people and will offer opportunities for partner swapping among consenting adults, a spokesman said.

But there are rules: Sexual activity is allowed only in designated areas such as cabins and "play rooms," the website says. Nudity is allowed on four decks, but clothes are required in bars and restaurants, and you must wear a robe or cover-up in hallways and elevators.

Already, 80 percent of the cabins have been booked, with prices starting at $1,000 per person for an interior room. Organizers expect the ship to be sold out by May.

I don't understand why any company that makes a business decision that obviously enhances their bottom line should be criticized. Azamara is making a very good profit and that helps them continue to provide us what we want.

How they choose to allow guests to use their product for a limited time has absolutely no impact on how that same product is presented to us the rest of the time.

I have no expectation (nor should anyone else) that the ship will not be in pristine condition for the next cruise and just can't understand how this cheapens the brand. I guess there are some people who think that other lifestyles somehow are inherently demeaning to those who don't share the same interests and that anyone who tolerates it is somehow cheap or deficient. Nobody has asked anyone who doesn't like that particular lifestyle to sign up.

In my opinion (and it's worth no more or less than any others expressed here), the only people who should have any justified negative feelings are the ones who had their booked cruise chartered out from under them.

I don't understand why any company that makes a business decision that obviously enhances their bottom line should be criticized. Azamara is making a very good profit and that helps them continue to provide us what we want.

 

 

 

How they choose to allow guests to use their product for a limited time has absolutely no impact on how that same product is presented to us the rest of the time.

 

 

 

I have no expectation (nor should anyone else) that the ship will not be in pristine condition for the next cruise and just can't understand how this cheapens the brand. I guess there are some people who think that other lifestyles somehow are inherently demeaning to those who don't share the same interests and that anyone who tolerates it is somehow cheap or deficient. Nobody has asked anyone who doesn't like that particular lifestyle to sign up.

 

 

 

In my opinion (and it's worth no more or less than any others expressed here), the only people who should have any justified negative feelings are the ones who had their booked cruise chartered out from under them.

Quite agree with you. I can't understand how this impacts on other cruises on Azamara

Sent from my iPad using Forums mobile app

For the record, and to prevent crazy rumors flying around such as "the ship becoming a sexual playground" - a hotel director once told me that open nudity is only allowed at specific times at specific venues, i.e. the pool area during the day and the Living Room at night. It's not allowed anywhere outside designated areas. (Also, health and safety regulations don't allow nudity in dining venues in the first place.) People have to sit on towels and special cushions at all times. Lastly, sex in public places is never allowed. Just as on any regular cruise, the only place to have sex is in your cabin with the door closed and the "do not disturb" sign up :)

 

Totally not my cup of tea, but not as awful as some people on here seem to love to make it out to be.

To be fair, the marketing is encouraging people to think the worst, they're exaggerating for the publicity. Your explanation makes a lot more sense but why isn't the cruise line offering that information to the press?

why isn't the cruise line offering that information to the press?

You don't know that they aren't. If we can find it easily online, so can journalists. But that's not scintillating or titillating or otherwise exciting to readers, so they don't bother reporting it. Seriously- look how much more play the articles in the newspaper are getting here than the descriptions from the charter company....

Does this cruise come with OBC's ???????????? (couldn't resist !) --Anyway, to each his own --- we all have free will and free choices in life -- really none of my business what others sexual preferences are as long as they don't flaunt them in my face, JMO.

I don't understand why any company that makes a business decision that obviously enhances their bottom line should be criticized...

This is apples to oranges, but what you're saying is that if say Raytheon (or some other defense contractor) sold weapons to known terrorists you'd be ok with that as the company was enhancing their bottom line.

/bad strawman is bad, but the point remains, not everything done for profit is necessarily good

This is apples to oranges, but what you're saying is that if say Raytheon (or some other defense contractor) sold weapons to known terrorists you'd be ok with that as the company was enhancing their bottom line.

/bad strawman is bad, but the point remains, not everything done for profit is necessarily good

Talk about apples and oranges. That is really not a valid comparison. The physical effects of Azamara's actions are negligible (and one could argue that there are none at all other than those passengers who had to change plans because their booked cruise was cancelled). Reactions to this have been focused mainly on how it "cheapens the brand" and there is no logical rationale for that, only emotional.

As can be relatively safely assumed, Azamara considered possible risks in doing this and decided it was still a good business decision. I would agree, even without knowledge of all the factors they considered. People who would never sail again (or at all) over this are almost certainly a small number and the loss of their business is probably heavily outweighed by the profits for this charter.

Not everything that some people find objectionable is bad to the majority.

Talk about apples and oranges. That is really not a valid comparison. The physical effects of Azamara's actions are negligible (and one could argue that there are none at all other than those passengers who had to change plans because their booked cruise was cancelled). Reactions to this have been focused mainly on how it "cheapens the brand" and there is no logical rationale for that, only emotional.

 

As can be relatively safely assumed, Azamara considered possible risks in doing this and decided it was still a good business decision. I would agree, even without knowledge of all the factors they considered. People who would never sail again (or at all) over this are almost certainly a small number and the loss of their business is probably heavily outweighed by the profits for this charter.

 

Not everything that some people find objectionable is bad to the majority.

But one can wonder, is the "brand" holding its own? If it is, why cancel a scheduled sailing for a charter? Are charters, like this one, a crucial part of Azamara's profitability? Who knows. Morality aside.

I may be mistaken, but it was my understanding that charters are far more profitable (aka lucrative) than regular fared cruises. On charters, there are no perks, they don't have to discount and the whole ship is booked. Azamara doesn't have to worry about empty cabins loss of revenue. No free liquor or free gratuities but revenue generating.

What's the downside for Azamara other than a few upset passengers who are offered OBC and an opportunity to switch to a similar cruise?

Morality aside, it is extremely profitable. Besides not having to market or support the bookings, they are guaranteed a full ship (and one can reasonably assume at a premium price). And it is likely that ChucktownSteve is right that the charter company also picks up the cost of alcohol and there will be few higher-level members of LCV to get a lot of perks. More to the bottom line from almost every angle you look.

As an anecdotal proof of this, we are on the Quest in August on a b2b that did not exist until they charted the ship for approximately 5 weeks to an Australian (I think) company that wanted to do an itinerary from Montreal to New Orleans. Azamara scrapped the Sept-Dec Med cruises to reposition the ship to Montreal and then booked Caribbean cruises until they either caught up to the rest of the schedule or "winged it" until the 2017 schedule came into play. No way they would have done that if it was a money-losing proposition.

There was a recent thread where Larry Pimentel was quoted as saying Azamara was doing very well in its niche market but the timing with so many ships coming out made this a bad time for Azamara to build a new one.

These charters are extremely profitable and many cruise lines do them, including Silversea and Seabourn.

Also these "special cruisers" bring their own entertainment on board, so the CD's and the entertainment team do get time off. I have been told that no crew member is forced to work on them if they have moral objections. Apparently the guests on these "speciality" cruises are very good tippers, so a lot of crew do really want to work. As to where the crew who opt out go...well they stay in the crew area's of course! They have a crew bar, crew outside deck and their cabins.

As for some of the posts here about morality and cleanliness....well I just had to giggle! Each to his own and all that ....but maybe don't look under your bed! Some posters here will understand that! :D

These charters are extremely profitable and many cruise lines do them, including Silversea and Seabourn.

 

Also these "special cruisers" bring their own entertainment on board, so the CD's and the entertainment team do get time off. I have been told that no crew member is forced to work on them if they have moral objections. Apparently the guests on these "speciality" cruises are very good tippers, so a lot of crew do really want to work. As to where the crew who opt out go...well they stay in the crew area's of course! They have a crew bar, crew outside deck and their cabins.

 

As for some of the posts here about morality and cleanliness....well I just had to giggle! Each to his own and all that ....but maybe don't look under your bed! Some posters here will understand that! :D

You are so correct Lottie A. ;-) Quite a giggle this morning when I started reading CC...a good chuckle is healthy and today I am one year older so thank you for the gift of laughter. I check under the bed now, on every cruise line...just in case LOL!

Happy Birthday Portofino! 🎂🍷

Hope you had a lovely day, with cake and wine....and I knew you would laugh and I think my friend Britchick would laugh too, if she sees this post! :D

Each to his own and all that ....but maybe don't look under your bed! Some posters here will understand that! :D

Please let us in on the joke! :)

"Live and Let Live", as they say...

Not for me either, but at least various charter groups have their own option (swingers, GLBT, Goth, Religious, etc.).

I'll bet the crew has stories.:eek: