Cutting corners?

There has been speculation for some time as to what and when the new owners (Norwegian) would do to maximize the bottom line. I know of at least four itineraries on different ships in the near future where the port stays in various ports have all been curtailed by an hour or more. Port charges can be significant and when multiplied by several ships and various ports it could start to add up and add to the bottom line. Now an hour lost in Pont Aven is no big deal but x 5 ports it becomes a big deal and one begins to feel nickeled and dimed. Most of us book cruises for the itinerary and to have to curtail tours or even not take that stroll or do some shopping is annoying to say the least.

I don't believe that changes to port times has anything to do with cutting corners. We have had them on many cruises. It can relate to port conditions and the effect of tides to scheduling issues from the port itself.

I can appreciate a certain level of frustration over curtailed port times.

My comment here has more to do with the whole "new owner" versus "old owner" debate. All owners have a duty to run a company profitably. I doubt FDR spent all his time sitting around thinking how to run Oceania solely for our enjoyment. (Although a newer/younger company might invest more dollars upfront in creating a brand/image/feel. This early approach is rarely sustainable.)

In the same fashion, I hardly think the owners of NCL are sitting around thinking of ways to nickel and dime its customers.

My opinion only.

There has been speculation for some time as to what and when the new owners (Norwegian) would do to maximize the bottom line. I know of at least four itineraries on different ships in the near future where the port stays in various ports have all been curtailed by an hour or more. Port charges can be significant and when multiplied by several ships and various ports it could start to add up and add to the bottom line. Now an hour lost in Pont Aven is no big deal but x 5 ports it becomes a big deal and one begins to feel nickeled and dimed. Most of us book cruises for the itinerary and to have to curtail tours or even not take that stroll or do some shopping is annoying to say the least.

The "new owners" of Oceania will have no effect, as there are essentially no new owners. Apollo Management was the owner of Oceania and Regent (as Prestige Cruise Holdings), and Frank Del Rio, the founder of Oceania, was the CEO. Apollo also owned a significant amount of NCL. NCL Holdings (NCLH) was created as the parent company to take NCL public through an IPO.

NCLH then "acquired" PCH and rolled all three cruise lines, NCL, Oceania and Regent, into one holding company. Subsequently, Frank Del Rio was named CEO of the overall holding company, NCLH. He brought many of his PCH executives with him. Prestige still exists as a division of NCLH, and the President is Jason Montague, who has been with Oceania since it was founded. NCL (the cruise line, not the holding company) is a separate organization within NCLH, whose President is Andy Stuart, a long-time NCL executive.

In other words, the "purchase" was really just a financial vehicle to bring Oceania into the publicly owned holding company without the problems and expense of a separate IPO. The management of the overall company is exactly the same as Oceania has always enjoyed.

It's NCL which is undergoing some far-reaching changes as a result, not Oceania. Apollo management is still a significant investor (perhaps the largest single investor), as they have been with Oceania since 2007. Apollo still has members on the Board of Directors. Apollo has not changed their goals.

Just my opinion, however the NCL deal might be good for Oceania and Regent. There is a lot of squeeze on NCL for added money, might be going to help pay for the other two. NCL was making money before, now with higher fares, more fee's, cheaper fuel, less port times they should make more.

I don't believe that changes to port times has anything to do with cutting corners. We have had them on many cruises. It can relate to port conditions and the effect of tides to scheduling issues from the port itself.

Several people keep mentioning "tides" as a reason for port changes. Tides are known literally years in advance and with the phases of the moon also known, so they know how high/low and severe tides will be at any port.

Since the lines originally set up the port times knowing all this, no changes should be made because of tides... unless there's a meteorological phenomenon I'm not aware of...???

Oceania DOES tend to change docking/anchoring and arrival/depart times at port A LOT. On our upcoming Sep 27th cruise on Riviera, they changed port arrival/departure times for FOUR of six ports.

On river cruises, of course, water level can change drastically with rain or no rain, so port changes would make sense on rivers.

Several people keep mentioning "tides" as a reason for port changes. Tides are known literally years in advance and with the phases of the moon also known, so they know how high/low and severe tides will be at any port.

 

Since the lines originally set up the port times knowing all this, no changes should be made because of tides... unless there's a meteorological phenomenon I'm not aware of...???

 

Oceania DOES tend to change docking/anchoring and arrival/depart times at port A LOT. On our upcoming Sep 27th cruise on Riviera, they changed port arrival/departure times for FOUR of six ports.

 

On river cruises, of course, water level can change drastically with rain or no rain, so port changes would make sense on rivers.

That is true; but they don't know years ahead how much silt or debris might be in the channel, that might require more clearance. We have totally missed ports and/or had to change schedules for it.

We've sailed multiple cruise lines and have experienced canceled or adjusted ports on all. I don't think this represents cutbacks.

On the reverse side of things we've seen Oceania and other lines stay in port right until the all aboard time, even when all passengers were back on board much earlier. We often sit outside to watch the port tear downs, which is often followed by a dead period of a couple hours before we sail.

Weather and sea conditions change all the time, we've experienced port time changes accordingly.

That is true; but they don't know years ahead how much silt or debris might be in the channel, that might require more clearance. We have totally missed ports and/or had to change schedules for it.

Again... I agree that could be a reason, but I think it's a pretty "low probability reason" in this case since all these four port changes have all been made very recently 1-2 months before the cruise and it's quite a coincidence that four different Greek ports on different islands have "silt and debris" issues all of a sudden and also 2months before we get there (i.e.: silt and debris could change a lot in 2 months by the time we arrive).

So I'm interested in the "real reason" that all these changes were so recently made, but will probably never know, since this knowledge is only in the Oceania employees' files... the fellow on the phone I talked to when I had to change my specialty reservations because of the port-time changes certainly didn't know the answer when I asked him. He said it could be the tides... obviously not the "real reason." I'm sure he didn't know the real reasons either.

So I'm interested in the "real reason" that all these changes were so recently made, but will probably never know, since this knowledge is only in the Oceania employees' files... the fellow on the phone I talked to when I had to change my specialty reservations because of the port-time changes certainly didn't know the answer when I asked him. He said it could be the tides... obviously not the "real reason." I'm sure he didn't know the real reasons either.

The phone reps are order takers they probably have no knowledge of the ports or anything outside of what is on the computer screen in front of them

even then they get things wrong

We are on the Marina Amsterdam to Barcelona Sept. 2 We are losing a total of 8 hours of port time in various ports. I heard from another CCer who said her cruise out of Barcelona on the 28th of Aug. had their port times at various ports cut 8 hrs. also. Dubai to Singapore 9/20 a total of 7 hrs. and the Istanbul to Athens cruise 9/27 3 hrs. This all seems to be rather excessive and something that cannot be explained away by tides or the port authorities or silt. 8 hrs. represents an entire lost day on a 12 day cruise. I don't really care for a discussion as to what corporate entity owns whom but this is all about making money and losing that amount of port time is something I did not sign on for.

... we've seen Oceania and other lines stay in port right until the all aboard time, even when all passengers were back on board much earlier. We often sit outside to watch the port tear downs, which is often followed by a dead period of a couple hours before we sail.

Weather and sea conditions change all the time, we've experienced port time changes accordingly.

Makes sense ships would still stay in port even if all passengers were on early, since the locals who handle the dock lines are scheduled for a certain time and will show up at the scheduled time to lift the lines. Otherwise the ship would pull the docks away from the ports. Or tow Greece to Asia.

Several people keep mentioning "tides" as a reason for port changes. Tides are known literally years in advance and with the phases of the moon also known, so they know how high/low and severe tides will be at any port.

...

It's possible that when they devise the itineraries two years in advance, they do so without knowledge of what the shipping traffic or port construction might be like, and that they have to adjust slightly later when they do. And I doubt that those same itinerary-makers consult tide charts two years in advance. So some fine-tuning would be in order.

Then again, there's the condition of the engines, and the short-term weather forecasting. If the captain or someone like him decides that he needs an extra hour to get from A to B, that's what they will do.

If it's only an hour shaved off a few ports hardly a show-stopper, I would think.

We are on the Marina Amsterdam to Barcelona Sept. 2 We are losing a total of 8 hours of port time in various ports. I heard from another CCer who said her cruise out of Barcelona on the 28th of Aug. had their port times at various ports cut 8 hrs. also. Dubai to Singapore 9/20 a total of 7 hrs. and the Istanbul to Athens cruise 9/27 3 hrs. This all seems to be rather excessive and something that cannot be explained away by tides or the port authorities or silt. 8 hrs. represents an entire lost day on a 12 day cruise. I don't really care for a discussion as to what corporate entity owns whom but this is all about making money and losing that amount of port time is something I did not sign on for.

Perhaps the ports are having to space ship arrivals and departures out more due to enhanced security. Any response you will receive from a CC post is a guess. If you need to know the exact reason, ask the captain when you are onboard.

IMO they do this to save on fuel as they can go slower to the next port. They have done this on NCL as well.

They seem to be saving money on their website. It has been down for three days.

They seem to be saving money on their website. It has been down for three days.

worked for me

They seem to be saving money on their website. It has been down for three days.

Works fine for me too.

I haven't been able to access it with Firefox but it works fine with IE.

Unfortunately I hate to use IE, but I have to -- I will!

Mura

worked for me

Website is fine with google chrome

I haven't been able to access it with Firefox but it works fine with IE.

 

Unfortunately I hate to use IE, but I have to -- I will!

 

Mura

That is interesting. Firefox is working with O for me.

Website is fine with google chrome

Worked for me with Firefox

Website is fine with google chrome

Works fine with Safari 8.0.8

Frances

The last view days, I have booked, added new cruise to my profile, looked at excursions etc. All seems fine.

IMO they do this to save on fuel as they can go slower to the next port. They have done this on NCL as well.

This is what my understanding is also.