Considering Silverseas or Raddison but have some questions!

[blackbird71]

 

My other concerns are getting into port with 5000 other people (I know the smaller ships don't have that many but there will probably be more than one ship in port). Do you feel like cattle (we are considering helsinki, copenhagen, st petersburg) in such special places? It is one thing in St Thomas, but Helsinki?

 

Help.

 

Thanks

 

I have done the Baltic on Princess, no crowds and the SS have less people. Make sure you overnight in St. Petersburg. We did and did the flight to Moscow one day and the Hermitage the next.

[XFed2001]

I consider cruise vacations a sampler. You do not have time to get to know any one local in depth. But you sure can cover a lot of grounds with no hussle. It is such a painless way to travel. On a ship like Silversea you know everything is taken care of, even the sightseeing. Ship's excursions usually cover the major highlights. No schelepping suitcases either. But you aren't likely to have the thrill of lingering over coffee after a wonderful dinner in a hole in the wall, or having the town all to yourself after tourists are gone. You don't feel you know the town intimately. At the same time approaching Venice or Istanbul from sea is a magical experience. Those cities were meant to be approached from sea, and that would be difficult to do if you are land based. Both can be a once-in-a-lifetime experience. You just have to decide what's more important to you.

 

Excuse me but it was my understanding that while there usually is a "special" free excursion during any cruise that all of the other excursions are the responsibility of the cruiser. Am I misinformed? I believe that given the premium one pays to cruise on SS, no-cost excursions should be included (as you mentioned). As an aside, my wife really enjoy having a real private balcony and that is the reason we never tried Seabourn; should we try Seaborn and air-condition the world as we cruise? Thanks to all for input.

[simonv]

I'm quite confused. I didn't say anything about a free excursion. To my knowledge, the SS doesn't offer too many free excursions. You can buy their excursions instead of arranging sightseeing yourself. They usually cover major highlights and the tour itself of high quality, but never in the depth you'd get if you stayed there for a few days.

[unfathomable]

Excuse me but it was my understanding that while there usually is a "special" free excursion during any cruise that all of the other excursions are the responsibility of the cruiser. Am I misinformed?

The special free excusion is called a "Silversea Experience" but it is offered only on selected cruises. The brochure flags these cruises and may hint at what the "experience" will be, but when we did it, our expectations were exceeded. All other excursions are chargeable. The website destination guide gives an indication of the excursions that are likely to be offered from each port. Once your cruise is reserved, you can pre-book excursions online. As you might expect, many people make their own arrangements for excursions, walk ashore independently, take the free shuttle bus offered in some ports and do their own thing...

[uk1]

I believe that given the premium one pays to cruise on SS, no-cost excursions should be included (as you mentioned). Thanks to all for input.

 

JGibbs is right.

 

All excursions incur costs, I think you are suggesting that the charge shouldn't be passed on to the individual customers based on the excursion they have chosen, but instead all customers irrespective of whether they want to go on excursions should pay into the common pool and contribute to the cost of other people's excursions.

 

This of course simply will not work.

 

Making it fully excursion inclusive would be a serious disadvantage to the majority of customers and to SS. Firstly, SS would have to invite people to choose their excursions way ahead of the cruise to ensure that they had the capapcity to offer customers the excursions that they had paid for in advance rather than merely only charge if it were available. Human nature being what it is, customers would therefore choose in advance excursions for every port irrespective of whether they actually end up taking them or not. This will cause potentially considerably higher levels of cruise prices, excursion wastage and therefore increase the levels of customer dissatisfaction. This issue will be further compounded by those (like us) who will never go on an excursion but always travel independently and will not be prepared to pay for them inclusively anyway. Purely guess work, but why would I pay an extra $1000 for a weeks cruise that included something that I will never use exactly? And would'nt it have to be close to $1500 to net down to $1000 on average after all the discounts?

 

The approach for these two reasons is impractical and would lose SS customers not gain them.

 

Jeff

[XFed2001]

JGibbs is right.

 

All excursions incur costs, I think you are suggesting that the charge shouldn't be passed on to the individual customers based on the excursion they have chosen, but instead all customers irrespective of whether they want to go on excursions should pay into the common pool and contribute to the cost of other people's excursions.

 

This of course simply will not work.

 

Making it fully excursion inclusive would be a serious disadvantage to the majority of customers and to SS. Firstly, SS would have to invite people to choose their excursions way ahead of the cruise to ensure that they had the capapcity to offer customers the excursions that they had paid for in advance rather than merely only charge if it were available. Human nature being what it is, customers would therefore choose in advance excursions for every port irrespective of whether they actually end up taking them or not. This will cause potentially considerably higher levels of cruise prices, excursion wastage and therefore increase the levels of customer dissatisfaction. This issue will be further compounded by those (like us) who will never go on an excursion but always travel independently and will not be prepared to pay for them inclusively anyway. Purely guess work, but why would I pay an extra $1000 for a weeks cruise that included something that I will never use exactly? And would'nt it have to be close to $1500 to net down to $1000 on average after all the discounts?

 

The approach for these two reasons is impractical and would lose SS customers not gain them.

 

 

Jeff

 

Upon second thought, of course you and JGibbs are correct. Forget about my suggestion for all-inclusive excursions. What I was referring to in my initial posting was in reference to what Simonv said: "On a ship like Silversea you know everything is taken care of, even the sightseeing." I apparently misinterepreted his statement to mean excursions were included as opposed to excursions were available through S.S. Thanks

[unfathomable]

Making it fully excursion inclusive would be a serious disadvantage to the majority of customers and to SS.

At least one cruise line does include excursions -- Swan Hellenic with its ship Minerva II. They do allow you to choose your excursions on board and until recently there was no need to book for the "default" excursion. But this is a "discovery" type line where most people wanted to do the excursions, it visits less-mainstream destinations where doing your own thing is more difficult and it's really not comparable with SS. (IMHO, Swan was much better in the good old days, 20-30 years ago when it chartered a small Greek tub and devoted itself to archaeology. These days, with its much bigger ex-Rennaissance ship with 600 or so passengers, it feels a bit like P&O with free excursions. But then I guess I may be romanticising the "good old days" -- the new ship is certainly much more comfortable than the "tub".)

[bechi]

Jeff,

 

I disagree and this is one point I've brought up to Silversea numerous times on surveys.

 

I think that on an all-inclusive line, "default" excursions should be included (the ~$30-$40 tours that are offered in just about every port), and more intensive, unusual or extravagant options should be available for a fee, much as the onboard amenities are handled. If the tours continue to be reservation only, I do not think most guests will book them to "get their money's worth" any more than they'll get plastered every evening; Silversea, for the most part, just doesn't attract that type of clientele. I also don't think it would necessarily require that much of an increase in cruise prices, since they would be "subsidized" by everyone on board, the same way alcohol is. The cost to the cruiseline would only be the actual cost per participant or minimum participation cost charged by the tour operator. I could be very, very wrong, but I can't see it increasing prices by more than one or two hundred dollars, not a dramatic enough difference to discourage even those who never book excursions through the cruise line.

 

I don't understand why Silversea would need passengers to choose excursions months ahead of time; why wouldn't they continue to use the same system where a selection of tours are offered at each port, (some included, some at an additional charge), subject to availability? If enough reservations are made for the tour it goes ahead, if not it doesn't, and if too many are made, the extra's go on a waiting list.

 

I find this topic very interesting and would love to hear from others. I'm I the only one who feels this way?

 

Bechi

[simonv]

It might make sense to offer default excursions in new areas such as Libya, or destinations that may have safety concerns.

[meow!]

Other than special cases, where there are safety concerns, visa requirements (e.g. St. Petersburg) where group visas are easier than individual visas, etc., shore excursion should be left to the individual instead of included. Many passengers would like to have the freedom of doing what they like on port days, and some (who have been to those ports before) may not want to leave the ship at all. A cruise is different from a "group tour", and the present arrangement of having some "Silversea experience" (special included excursions), and leaving the rest to individuals is a good compromise and quite adequate.

[goeurope]

"All-inclusive" might better be described as "all-inclusive of the cruise basics," meaning food, most drinks, and tips. If Silversea were to include excursions, then why not include Internet access, ship-to-shore phone calls, spa treatments, and premium wines and spirits, too? Obviously, Silversea has to draw the line somewhere (unless it wants to hand business to rivals like Seabourn), so it makes sense to include the essentials--i.e., the things that, on most other lines, have passengers signing chits during the cruise and filling envelopes on the night before disembarkation.

[yazoosail]

Off topic but a quick ? for Durant-- Do you have any quick advice as to whether Silja Lines or Viking Lines has the better ferry service from Helsinki to Stockholm? I haven't found any boards that discuss overnight Baltic ferries. Thanx in advance--Dennis

[meow!]

We took the Silja Serenade from Stockholm to Helsinki in September, 1999. It was a very nice ferry. It had a "mall" right at the centre of the ship, and many shops and restaurants or fast food outlets. You buy what you want to eat or drink. Most cabin categories did not include any meals. We were in a Silja class cabin (some 140 sq.ft. with a small window but no balcony) and had just the breakfast included. Everything on that ship was tax/duty free and very cheap, cheaper than on shore. It was quite enjoyable, and we would prefer it to last several days instead of just overnight. Sometimes we even wonder why no cruise line is interested in operating such "all exclusive" (and therefore freedom to choose and buy your own as you go) cruises, just in contrast to the partial/all inclusive concept adopted by just about all cruise lines! Hope this helps.

[simonv]

Mass market lines are just about there. Just about the only thing included is the meals in the main dining room. It would be more honest to charge for each meal, and done with misleading unsuspecting public. If public on mass market lines understands they are paying for a hotel room that moves, then they won't complain about 'nickle and diming'.

[goeurope]

Off topic but a quick ? for Durant-- Do you have any quick advice as to whether Silja Lines or Viking Lines has the better ferry service from Helsinki to Stockholm? I haven't found any boards that discuss overnight Baltic ferries. Thanx in advance--Dennis

 

Silja is a little more upscale than Viking, and its ships were newer the last time I checked. On the other hand, Viking departs from the city center, while Silja's terminal is in the industrial port just outside of town. Both lines use modern "cruise ferries," so you won't go wrong with either choice.

[yazoosail]

To Meow & Durant-- Thanx for the info; i really appreciate your courtesy-- Dennis

[uk1]

Jeff,

 

I disagree and this is one point I've brought up to Silversea numerous times on surveys.

 

I think that on an all-inclusive line, "default" excursions should be included (the ~$30-$40 tours that are offered in just about every port), and more intensive, unusual or extravagant options should be available for a fee, much as the onboard amenities are handled. If the tours continue to be reservation only, I do not think most guests will book them to "get their money's worth" any more than they'll get plastered every evening; Silversea, for the most part, just doesn't attract that type of clientele. I also don't think it would necessarily require that much of an increase in cruise prices, since they would be "subsidized" by everyone on board, the same way alcohol is. The cost to the cruiseline would only be the actual cost per participant or minimum participation cost charged by the tour operator. I could be very, very wrong, but I can't see it increasing prices by more than one or two hundred dollars, not a dramatic enough difference to discourage even those who never book excursions through the cruise line.

 

I don't understand why Silversea would need passengers to choose excursions months ahead of time; why wouldn't they continue to use the same system where a selection of tours are offered at each port, (some included, some at an additional charge), subject to availability? If enough reservations are made for the tour it goes ahead, if not it doesn't, and if too many are made, the extra's go on a waiting list.

 

I find this topic very interesting and would love to hear from others. I'm I the only one who feels this way?

 

Bechi

 

Bechi,

 

The point is quite a simple one and your solution sounds quite complex.

 

The point is that pretty much everyone eats and drinks. So making inclusive of food and drink isn't likely to upset many. I and many people like me rarely take excursions. I live in Europe, have visited most of the places SS cruise to and enjoy the cruise not neccessarily all the ports. If SS put the prices up to include basic excusrsions and there was a comparable alternative that didn't they'd lose a lot of business. You can still have the excursions - you just pay for the ones you want.

 

Jeff

[bechi]

I guess I am the only one who feels this way! I just imagine including excursions (just the basic, cost-equivalent to a bottle of wine type of tour) would be a natural progression for an all-inclusive line, much like some of the other "little extras" already provided such as the complimentary shuttles, cigarettes, etc. As I said, I have mentioned this to Silversea every time I've been solicited with a questionaire and the only change I've witnessed is to see port charges suddenly excluded, so they obviously don't agree with me either!

 

FWIW, I'm not overly impressed with the majority of their shore excursion offerings myself, although I have booked two over the years: a small group tour of Ephesus led by a local historian and a tour of Moyenne, Brendan Grimshaw's private island in the Seychelles. Although these two appealed to me and I enjoyed them very much, most aren't really to my taste. I just like the idea that a bus tour highlighting the city is included if I so desire. For me it's part of the experience that many things are available even if I really don't have any interest in them personally (such as some of the shows on board).

 

Maybe if I get ambitious I'll start a thread someday about Silverseas shore excursions - those that were really something memorable and those that we wish were offered.

 

Bechi

[simonv]

Silversea passengers have been to most of the basic sites especially in Europe, though. I need a free tour of Florence like a hole in the head, so as most people I assume, and I'm not sure I'll be willing to pay extra for it. Silversea passengers are generally well off and better traveled. Now if it's a newly opened port like in Libya, it might be different.

[uk1]

Now if it's a newly opened port like in Libya, it might be different.

 

Interestingly, if I think back just 18 months or so many posts from Americans were asking whether it was safe for Americans to walk around London, or Florence or Rome etc after the Iraq invasion and there were many questions about Bush. These questions have all but dissapeared.

 

Now Americans seem quite content to walk around a Libyan port and say Beirut - and whereas many Europeans were puzzled by those questions of 18 months ago many now (as then) wouldn't dream of disembarking at a Libyan port or Beirut!

 

Interesting the differing perceptions of risk!

 

Jeff