ak1004

why not to use TA? It costs you nothing and most TAs give you some perks. Our gives around 10% rebate. And they call O for any issues.

I'm pretty sure they will send notifications in July when they officially move to the new model.. To me the new bookings are the major concern. I don't like the new model at all..

I understand it.. but under the old program, you could book cruise only.. no OBC.. now you are forced to take the OBC which can be used for excursions only, plus basic beverage package is included. Assuming the prices will increase by the amount of OBC plus the cost of the beverage package - so for a 10 nights cruise, it will cost $800 more and include things that I don't necessarily want. For many people O pricing model was attractive because it was "la carte", but now they are moving closer to (almost) all inclusive model. Basically very similar to Viking.

Thanks.. So they basically force you to take the OBC, and it can be used for excursions only? Also someone mentioned internet per person and not per cabin, didn't see it on the flyer.

Where do you see all the details of the program? Is it from your TA or are the details out already? See nothing on the Canadian website..

Exactly my thought. With the current model, you can take cruise only and book private tours, or take oLife excursions, pay $400 pp and pick 4 excursions that cost $200 each, so gain $400 pp. With the new model, assuming the $400 pp excursion model is priced into the new pricing, you are forced to take at least few O excursions, but you don't have any added value.

Where do you see all the details? When is the screenshot taken from? I cannot see it on Canadian website.

Our last O cruise was the first one where we travelled with a carry on only (to be more accurate, we had a carry on and a small bag each, something similar to this one). The cruise was 10 nights plus 3 nights pre cruise in Barcelona. We had some concerns, but it was perfect. Yes, you need to think what to pack instead of just throwing everything into the suitcase and not using half of it.. Using packing cubes was helpful, also used travel size toiletries. Will probably not going back to checked in luggage, definitely not when cruising with O (SS might be more challenging, will see).

I sincerely hope they will NOT move to Viking model. Last time I checked, Viking prices were 20-30% higher compared to O (I assume mostly due to more inclusions) and pretty close to SS prices for many itineraries. I find it hard to see how someone would book Viking at the same (or similar) price as SS, all other factors equal, and same is true for O. As much as I like O, I still consider SS a step up. I would not pay 30% more for what I get with SS, but if prices were similar, my choice would be obvious..

Agree with you 100%. We are booked on 3 cruises on SS (1 past and 2 future) because the price (and of course the itinerary) were right. But with more things included, the prices on average will be higher, and all other factors equal, you would prefer to sail on a cheaper line if the more expensive line includes things that are of no value to you.

Not exactly the same. The things you mentioned are free on all cruise lines.

Agree with your assessment mostly (small correction: 3 ports missed, not 4), and it was nice to meet you on the private tour.

We are using a TA in the US and have a choice to book in USD or CAD. With some lines it's better to book in USD, but the difference is usually no more than 5-7%. It's the first time I'm seeing such dramatic difference (Regent in GBP).

One of the things (among others) we like about O is the option to pay only for what we like. We don't drink so don't like to subsidize drinkers, and we have no interest in included excursions (hopefully they will not repeat SS mistake). Lets not forget that in some cases O prices are already pretty close to SB and SS. If they increase them too much, the prices might become comparable to SS and SB - and honestly, I don't think many people would book O if they can book SB or SS for the same price. This is especially true with the older R class ships. So I don't believe we will see steep increases, but if I'm wrong, they are going to lose a LOT of business to SB and SS.

This is not apples to apples comparison at all. In this case, the strikes were a reality, not a possibility - the only question was the dates. Anyway, I believe we covered the subject..

Well, this is what I see on the Canadian website: Regent includes BC flights or credit of $3,650 CAD, so cruise only price is $13,600. SB comes to $712/night and Regent $1,133/night. Even if you account for included excursions (say $100/night), Regent is still 50% more expensive. For some reason, Canadian pricing is very unfavorable for Regent.

I think the pricing would depend on your location, but also on duration, cabin category and destination. We are interested mostly in 10-12 nights European cruises. The cheapest ones were still more expensive than SS and SB, and those were on the Navigator. I have no interest to sail on a 30 years old ship when I can pay less and sail on 5-10 years old ships (same holds for Crystal). Even the cheapest ones on the newer ships were still more expensive than many sailings on SS and SB, even after accounting for all inclusions. We are comparing the cheapest categories which are OV on SS and SB, so this might be not 100% apples to apples, but we don't need the veranda and are not willing to pay for it. After one sailing on SS and one on the old Crystal, I'm still not convinced that the premium is justified compared to Oceania.

I think we can all agree that transparency and communication are NOT the areas O is strong in..

Can you please explain how they reduce costs by cancelling ports? They surely lose huge revenues from the port excursions (at least $50k per port according to my conservative estimates), where do they gain? As for "never again" - on our Regatta cruise last September, we met a group of ladies who booked two cruises on the first day, but cancelled them a few days later after Mexico was cancelled due to Hurricane. Not sure if they expected the captain to take the ship into the hurricane.. but the fact remains.

No it's not speculative at all. Most people travel for destinations, and we met a lot of guests on our last few cruises who said "never again" after cancelled ports. Cruise lines are well aware that cancelling ports will cause a lot of lost business.

I'm not a TA or Oceania employee. If you look at my signature, you can see that we sailed on 11 different lines, so I'm also not a loyalist or a cheerleader. We had ports cancelled with SS, Azamara and Crystal, as well as with other lines. Some lines are more transparent, some are less. Some give you compensation, some don't. Some reasons look reasonable, some don't. On our last SS cruise we had 3 days on Doha cancelled, then one day in Bahrein. Some guests described it as "bait and switch". The reason given was completely far fetched. Maybe it was valid, maybe they had a different reason but didn't want to share it. It doesn't really matter. Port cancellations are always disappointing, but I will repeat one more time: it's not the cruise lines interest to cancel ports. My assumption is that they have more facts than we do and wouldn't cancel if they absolutely didn't have to. Your assumption is that they lie, cover up and have some hidden agenda and do it on purpose. We will continue sailing with O, SS and Azamara (Crystal is just doesn't make sense at this point financially) because we love all those lines and love the on board experience.

You keep repeating the same speculations over and over and presenting them as facts - but the only fact is that they are just speculations. You have no proof when they made a decision. You have no proof who made the decision. You have no proof that they lied. But yes, they know more than we do. Cruise lines don't just cancel ports for no reason because they don’t want unhappy guests and they don't want to lose revenues from shore excursions (at least $150k in this case). So all your so called facts are not facts - they are just your interpretation of the events.

Yes, this was the reason they provided. I agree. This was a singe example, not necessarily representative. Before sailing on SS, I asked on CC what's the difference between O and SS. One of the members responded that on lines like SS, they will prepare for you anything as long as they have the ingredients on board. And if they don't, they will try to get it in the next port. It's possible that there were no pomegranates in this region at this season. I'm pretty sure that if they had pomegranates on board, they would prepare the fresh juice. On Oceania we asked to have cherry jubilee. The MDR manager had no idea what I'm talking about, but she wrote the request and said they will get back to me. A few hours later, a message in my cabin saying that my request has been approved. We asked for it in the morning, got it for dinner. It was never part of the menu. My point is that while O is considered by many a “nay-sayers line” and SS a “never-say-no line.”, in many cases they might be closer than people think.

Fresh pomegranate juice.

Some people suggest that O belongs to “nay-sayers lines” and SS belongs to “never-say-no lines.” Our experience was the opposite. On our last O cruise every single request was filled, including 2 special requests for food at dinner and breakfast. SS was pretty close, but still one request was denied.