Breckski

Just wanted to do a quick analysis relating to this. Comparing a 10-night Viking Greek Odessey cruise in Sept '25 to a 12-night Regent Ancient Ruins cruise in Sept '25. Both are Athens to Athens and have similar itineraries. Viking advertises theirs as an 11-day cruise while Regent advertises theirs as a 12-night cruise. So really a two night difference. For a Viking PV3 (338 sq ft) the cost is $799 per person per night. This does not include tips or SSP. On a Regent F (356 sq ft) the cost is $746 per person per night. So, on this cruise Regent is $53 per person per night cheaper than Viking excluding tips that I'm sure most pay on Viking and any beverage package. With Regent having a slightly larger stateroom. You'd probably get a higher OBC/discount/rebate from a TA on the Regent cruise. I'm not saying Regent would definitely provide a better cruise. Just pointing out the cost isn't always as many perceive. Lastly, for the cruise above Regent's lowest category staterooms are less than Viking also, but those cabins have a window - no veranda. I didn't think that was a fair comparison.

🤣🤣🤣 Mow their lawns. I've used a very similar comparison to describe the dress of certain folks in Viking restaurants. But I say they dress similarly landscapers. Fits the no jean and collared shirt requirement though. Landscapers want something to cover their arms and legs with denim being too heavy and hot. Their dress really didn't bother me though as I really don't care what strangers wear. However, I find humor in this being the outcome of the dress code. Reminded me of the old warning to bonus compensation plans - be careful what you ask from your employees.

I'm perfectly satisfied with Viking's limited entertainment. But realize these performances are very simple compared to what larger ships offer.

Agree completely with your comments and they really document why we're giving Regent and Seabourn a try. On many itineraries, Viking is more expensive than Regent if you compare comparably sized staterooms. We always stay in a PV or higher but have decided the larger staterooms are not the sweet spot for Viking from a pricing perspective.

Any thoughts? We're comparing a 7-night Tahiti only cruise or a 11-night cruise that includes the Tuamotu Islands. This is for May 2025. We've never been to Tahiti before. As background, we're physically active/fit and keep this mentality when on vacation - want active excursions in the case of a cruise. We normally would say take the longer trip, but that cruise includes a sea day (we don't love sea days). Mainly inquiring if the Tuamotu Islands are interesting or would those additional days be boring relatively speaking. We could always stay a couple extra days in a resort in Papeete if we decide to skip the Tuamotu Islands. Thanks.

So why don't you support these other lines and stop beating this horse on the Viking forum. You don't like Viking's payment policies and that none of the least expensive cabins are accessible. Good thing is you have options. And before someone says I'm unbelievably insensitive and they'll pray for me that I never have such mobility issues, I'm fully aware of the struggles such folks have - parents and uncle. I actually asked them about this as I was concerned that I was being too hard with my thoughts as I clearly do not want to support something that makes their lives overly burdensome. Given it's a small sample size of 3, but they all said they would not expect a cruise line to have accessible cabins for every category of stateroom. And they all stated that they'd feel safer on a cruise in a larger stateroom. From my experience in the various staterooms on Viking combined with knowledge of the exact mobility issues of family members, I feel a PS category room is ideal. Better than an ES since all is open. The real point is, I don't think all individuals with mobility issues share your opinion on Viking's policy toward the volume of ADA rooms by category. To me it's rather harsh to imply Viking is socially irresponsible, and this comes from someone who clearly has issues with certain aspects of the line.

Exactly. Viking can't please everyone, and in this situation, they did what I would do. I have a handicapped mother and would not want her to cruise in anything smaller than a PS category stateroom. Ships move, rock & roll a bit, and have pretty small base staterooms. The larger room would make it so much easier for her to get around corners. But this is just my opinion, and Viking can't please the entire population of cruisers. And I certainly wouldn't expect Viking to have accessible staterooms in every stateroom category - why isn't the owners suite ADA accessible from the opposite end of the spectrum.

I'd recommend getting using a TA outside of Viking. One with a higher volume of Viking transactions may be able to help you out - better contacts at Viking. Additionally, they may be able to provide additional OBC. But in any event, with the $25 deposit offer you don't have a ton at risk especially as compared to the total cost. If you are objecting to make a point, simply book on another line. I don't think your objection will change Viking's policy, nor will it change your perceived quality of their representatives.

Maybe this is true in with your circle of friends, but definitely not the case with mine. My friends behave how they want to behave regardless of what they are wearing. The thought of clothing dictating behavior is simply incomprehensible to me. I hope I'm never so easily influenced as to be a different person behaviorally solely based upon how I'm dressed. The really funny thing to me is that people can wear antiquated crap and meet the dress code, but folks dressing with a bit of modern flair are potentially criticized. I'm sure folks resisting changes in dress codes over the years have said similar things to no avail. Dress changes, as does most things, over time.

As I said earlier, Viking understands what is going on with respect customers with mobility issues. They made these decisions knowing the ramifications. Viking's business decisions do not have to mirror other lines. And I think our image of Viking's target market differ. I think Viking's target market is more active than I think you believe from your post. Obviously "seniors" can be active. And I feel these active folks are the customers Viking is after. It's up to each individual to determine if Viking works best for them, considering operations and business policies.

I imagine Viking completely understands and has responded with their actions and policies. It's for the consumer to decide if the line best matches their needs and desires.

I don't have an answer about the specific excursion you ask about. But wanted to share an experience we had in December. We had about 3 hours to kill in PR before our flight. We hired an Uber and went to Playa Azul, spent a little time there and had an early lunch with the driver. We had him take the long way to Playa Azul to show us things he found interesting. He specifically asked if we had time to visit the forest. He wanted to take us there. Said it was really nice if the weather was ok and that he loved taking his family there. Unfortunately, we didn't have time. But we'll remember his suggestion next time we're in PR.

I've worked with business management long enough to know that the ones who make decisions would say it's easy enough to add an option. IT pushback, likely. But from my experience the IT folks who constantly made progress and change sound overly complex were the ones of least benefit to the entity. It was always a breath of fresh air to hear the IT Director say: "Sure, not problem, it's simple, we'll take care of that". Really not attacking you, just my experience, and I'm sure you've experienced this as well. Senior management complaining about uncooperative IT dept, and the IT dept complaining about senior management who do not understand the complexity of their jobs. Like many things, the truth is likely in the middle🤣

Completely understand that, but why wouldn't Viking give an option? Just add an option when one finalizes the cancellation. Like how they provide a payment option. Wouldn't be difficult to program. I'm simply curious from a business operations viewpoint as it closely relates to my professional experience. If I were in charge of their business operations, I'd want the funds to stay in my possession as long as possible, especially if the customer so desired. Some would leave the money in their account and find a way to spend (waste???) the funds while on-board. And others, like me in this situation, would like the simplicity for re-booking.

What's the primary purpose/benefit of such an eSIM for someone on a cruise? I'm assuming it's for cost-savings as compared to your providers international plan but wanted to ask in case I'm missing something.

I'm really not upset and not concerned about the double-booking as I easily identified the issue. But any thoughts as to why they don't let folks apply funds from cancelled excursions to their account? They already have a system to track credits to your account.

Got a question about a Viking policy simply out of curiosity. Here's the background. This week I got an email from Viking stating that an excursion had been moved from one day to the subsequent day due to the excursion operator not being able provide the service on the original date. The email also stated: "Your schedule has been automatically adjusted and there is no action required on your end." Not exactly true as the shifting of the excursion created two timing conflicts with excursions already booked on the second day. I called Viking, and the rep said I had to cancel the ones on the second day and re-book them on the first day if I wanted to keep those excursions. One could easily criticize the email stating no action required but I simply write that off to volume and the fact Viking can't adjust schedules on their own. But I would word the email differently. Here's the question though. Why doesn't Viking give one the option of applying funds for cancelled excursions to their account - like having a self-funded OBC? To me this would be simpler than what I ended up having to do which was cancel two excursions (and wait for Viking to refund into my bank account) and rebook (and immediately pay) for the same excursions on a different date. I really don't think this happens enough for Viking to have this policy for float/interest income. Any thoughts? I find the current method inefficient and not customer friendly. Wonder if I'm missing a legitimate reason for the policy.

Not to insult, but you do you. Bless your heart.🤣

@Steerpike58 your experience confirms my thoughts to never book an extension with a cruise line unless I have very, very serious concerns about my ability to navigate the area. It seems like you wasted much time due to the logistics of being attached to a "group". I'm sorry for you experience but want to thank you for sharing.

I do think River would provide general insight into VO, but to me it's like comparing Windstar or NCL to VO. Just so many differences due to size. I realize the comparison was using a large river ship, but still 1/2 the passengers. And I certainly wouldn't use a river cruise experience to provide any meaningful comparison between VO and Oceania. We thought our VR cruise was more like a land based, bus tour on a moving hotel/bus. Not a bad concept, but still designed to provide a "common" experience for all on board - from dining to excursions to a certain extent. I remember Gary Bembridge saying something to that effect prior to us taking a river cruise. I didn't truly understand what he meant until I did one. But some folks love and crave that type of experience.

Not sure I'd be loyal to VO after doing a river cruise and walking through an older Oceania vessel. This is like saying it'd be hard to sway me away from a 5/series because I like my 3/series. Just like the car analogy, VR has similarities to VO, but there certainly are more differences than similarities. I don't say this as a negative to VO as we've been very pleased with our past VO cruises and enjoyed our one river cruise (but didn't like it enough to do another). Just don't agree with the logic above especially when used to provide insight to a VO vs Oceania cruise.

We are visiting in 2025 also. The ship spends two nights in Kobe. Based on research both here on CC and otherwise, we plan on staying one night at a hotel in Kyoto instead of sleeping on the ship in order to maximize our time in Kyoto. I know not really excursion related but something for you to consider.

Completely understand your sentiment, and I'd be very, very upset also. Just trying to offer something to lower your frustration from a 10 to maybe a 7. This situation certainly doesn't look favorably to WS. With that said, if I had my pick, I'd rather cruise there without the Olympics. TV, support crew, marketing activities - in general things I'd rather not experience in Tahiti. Situation still sucks though.

We certainly understand the rules and abide by them. But in my case, just don't think a dress code has a lot to do with good taste. The thoughts behind a dress code are interesting to me especially given the fact that dress is continually getting more casual - airplanes, cruises, business, church, etc. I try to understand the honest reasons behind these policies. Never want to be one who says the world is falling apart just because it's changing.

Unsolicited suggestion - make it to Krakow if going to Prague.