Hanoj

That makes CEOs the opportunists.

@Heidi13 (with respect, I know your name but we’ve not established the familiarity such use entails), I commend you for your objectivity. It’s exemplary. Many, myself included I suspect, would have taken a shot at disparaging Viking when the fruit hangs so low. You didn’t, you ale drinking saint (I’m reminded of Martin Luther who enjoyed discussing theology over a pint or two!). I’m sincere in my compliments. It’s refreshing observing such integrity. Anecdotally, we opted to take the cash refund in lieu of future cruise vouchers with the 25% uplift when Viking canceled our May 2020 cruise. As a financial professional I weighed the risk of whether Viking would survive the shutdown against the likelihood of increased fares upon resumption. I didn’t wade through the details of the vouchers, but would have carefully considered the terms before accepting the vouchers if I had been inclined toward their offer. Unfortunately, caveat emptor, as a principle in law, remains highly relevant.

This seems to be more an exception than the rule. Viking has its strongest presence in the North Sea and has probably been able to leverage its influence into wider opportunities in this region. Perhaps, too, your cruise next week with more than one complimentary excursion to choose from in some ports is a harbinger.

It appears the SS shore exclusion policy is more similar to Regent than to Viking. 1 - 1 - 0 for those keeping score (SS, R, V). As for O’s new simplyMORE shorex OBC compared to Viking, I give the nod to O. Some choice is better than none. I also suspect the price paid to Viking for a walking or bus tour in each port is significantly higher (as built into the fares) than O’s new program will entail.

Rumors of O’s death (err significant price increases) have been greatly exaggerated!

This use restriction is for the OBC included in the fare? TA awarded OBC has less restrictions?

https://www.seatrade-cruise.com/finance/viking-refinances-720m-notes-sale Raising capital at a lower interest rate to replace higher rate notes due in 2025. EBITDA still less than half of what it was in 2019, but appears to be trending toward a sound recovery. For example, the rate reduction (13% to 9.125%) will reduce annual debt service interest expense by about $28 million, assuming the new debt is equal to the debt being paid off. And, the reduction in the expected 9.25% rate to 9.125% lowers interest expense by $900K per year, depending on amortization terms.

Clairvoyance?

Why aren’t tips included in simplyMORE? Viking doesn’t include them.

Former favorite. We were becoming more independent minded (DIY and private excursions) after three Viking cruises (with two more booked that were cancelled due to the shutdowns). Viking was a great hatchway to cruising for us. But Viking has become expensive enough that we have considered Regent (we book business air) and we would prefer not to pay for inclusions we don’t use. Also, if Viking, to us, is off-puttinly paternalistic. Shortly before threads appeared in this forum about the upcoming simplyMORE changes we booked our first Oceania cruise on Vista for August ‘23. We are looking forward to this and liked the ala carte pricing model. The simplyMORE changes will not, by themselves, cause us to ditch Oceania after one cruise, but paying higher prices for unwanted inclusions will favor comparisons with other lines. Based on comments I’ve read among the O forum, Seabourn is growing in appeal.

Not especially. But perhaps O will become considered Viking Lite, not withstanding the attempt to eschew the upper premium categorization in favor of “luxury.” Almost as inclusive as Viking at lower prices.

Avoid the cookies (they’re tasteless), drain pour the Germain, and pass eating at Ember (new and noisy specialty restaurant on Vista). This is the gist from several threads.🤪

? First is the tasteless cookies, then . . .

And if O repeats it enough, perhaps customers will believe it. This may be part of the psychology of simplyMORE.

I don't foresee O rolling back to cruise only fares. Instead, we will likely see more inventive "sales" if they are unable to fill ships after the new program is implemented. They want to raise fares, but it remains to be seen how price sensitive cruise consumers are presently. I think we are observing some of the "revenge spending's" impact on present sailings across many lines and this will dissipate, especially if service doesn't soon return to pre-shutdown levels. But, then there may be enough customers who have accepted the devolution affecting many industries and will pay simplyMORE for less.

When the world seems to shine like you've had too much wine That's simply(a)MORE!

Oceania is beginning to look simplyMORE like Viking.

I agree.

Any additional information leaks?

Non sequitur. O still serves the tasteless cookies.

I believe brand loyalty is a casualty of the resumption after the shutdowns. Lines are scrambling to fill ships while minimizing costs to deal with debt loads. Those that are able to meet or exceed customer expectations will likely maintain some brand loyalty. However, it seems some lines, Oceania among them, are willing to roll the dice with new marketing campaigns, even if it means losing long term, loyal customers. For those with great flexibility, there will likely be “arbitrage” bargains if willing to use various brands. I suspect there will be leapfrogging going on between lines. This will make cruise booking decisions more difficult for cost conscious consumers. Of course the flip side is brand loyalty will be more, err Simply More in O’s case, expensive for consumers,

I was thinking the Ensure Cocktail: 1 single serving bottle of Ensure, 1 small scoop of ice cream, 1 shot crème de cacao, and 1 shot Kahlua.

More so now than ever before. Which is more likely to fail first, the cruise line or the insurer?

Is Ensure available?