Some calculations for the 11-5-05 cruisers

[NancyBancy]

I did some very rough calculations about the amputation performed on our itinerary. It was difficult to come up with figures for Tripoli, since we overnighted there, but since we were not going to be allowed off the ship while not on tour anyway, I used numbers gleaned from tour duration i.e. an eight hour van tour meant we would be off the ship eight hours, even though we were physically in the port of Tripoli longer. In other words, I gave the wider leash and benefit of the doubt to Oceania.

 

At any rate, by my calculations, we have lost a total of 20% of our time on land. This includes the abbreviation of almost every port, the elimination of Gibraltar, and the two hours we lost in Barcelona at the beginning. It also included that oh-so-rare occasion where we picked up an hour or two. I show a former approximate total of 61 hours on land, an approximate net loss of 12.5 hours (the hours are still not consistent on Malta between what was on the website yesterday & what we have been informed are the new hours, just another example of Oceania's attention to detail), which despite my abysmal math skills works out to a 20% reduction in port time.

 

Please, anyone with math skills greater than mine (which is just about any 2nd grader), correct me if I'm in error.

 

As we know, this reduction of 20% has resulted in no offers of compensation, nor has a refund of our Gibraltar port charges been mentioned.

 

I have the same problems accessing this board during the day as everyone else does, but later on today, I hope to provide a thread for speculation about what has caused this amputation. Since Oceania has chosen to provide no reason, I think it will be a good thing to share what we *think* might be the reasons. They may be right reasons, they may be wrong reasons, but they will be more interesting than *no* reason!

[HowardB]

NancyBancy -

 

Your math skills are good, but could be even better with a little refinement. Here is what I mean:

 

You state that you have lost approximately 12.5 hours of approximately 61 hours in port. Indeed, that rounds to 20 percent, as you state. However, a more refined calculation comes to 20.49 percent, oh so close to 21 percent. If you can be more exact, and just add 6 minutes of lost port time, so that it would total 12.6 hours, the time lost would be 20.508 percent, which would round to 21 percent. At this point, you might feel angrier, but in a way better, with more time lost.

[NancyBancy]

Sorry, Howard, I keep trying to post a response to your calculations but as you know these boards can get frustrating at times! I would have responded even earlier than that but I had a doctor's appointment, where both doctors and staff expressed dismay at my elevated blood pressure, which is usually normal. I told them about the 20% reduction in my port times and how angry I was about it. They duly inquired about the compensation I was receiving for said reduction. I duly informed them, "not a nickel." They they inquired about the reason for the reduction. I informed them, "it is necessary from time to time for Oceania cruises to make revisions to our previously published itineraries." They responded, "what the @#$% does that mean?" I responded, "how the @#$% do I know?" :D

 

I will immediately commence a search for those six minutes. I will have plenty of time to do this as I no longer have to research or read about the port of Gibraltar, which has suddenly gone missing from my itinerary, along with many other hours of eagerly anticipated port time! :D

[mistik]

Nancy:

I have tried since this Sunday to post here in cruisecritic, about my outrage at the Oceania Regatta itinerary changes.

Every time I am ready to submit my post, I get logged off.

 

I am on this cruise as well, and cannot believe how Oceania has handled this situation! The timing, communication (or lack thereof) is not easy to accept.

 

I've been on a number of cruises, even one where over 50% of ports were CANCELLED, whilst sailing on the cruise ship.

Now, this would have caused passengers to cry bloody murder, but in this instance, it was horrible weather ("worst storm in the Mediterranean in 20 years") that mandated the captain to run for cover in an unplanned port.

 

My point is, I would understand if Oceania issued an official communique explaining the acceptable reason/s (security, diplomatic, health risks, weather, etc).

 

But for them to publish only on their website, publish only after the 90-day, no-penalty mark, not inform the TA's/passengers, be evasive when contacted (just try calling the 800-number which Jan provided)… this is not the hallmark of a boutique-aspires-to-be-high-end cruise line.

 

I don't feel like a valued customer.

There were other cruises/cruise lines I researched, but I specifically purchased THIS Oceania cruise for the port-intensive itinerary of new places to me.

With the shortened times at ports, switched port days, eliminated Gibraltar port, more days at sea… well, this is not what I paid for.

There is a privately-arranged tour in Malta which included the Hypogeum - a highlight destination - now in jeopardy because of the switched port day.

 

My TA informed me this afternoon that if we cancel now, Oceania will not be giving any refunds, because… "from time to time, Oceania makes changes to their itineraries."

 

I called my Credit Card company to make inquiries.

They will put the cruise amount in dispute, fight it out with Oceania, etc.

But I am not guaranteed a full refund since they have to conduct an investigation.

 

I can cancel now, and take the chance of a full refund or not.

Or I can still choose to go and just accept a product much reduced than what I paid for.

 

I thought better of Oceania before this.

[NancyBancy]

Mistik, I'm glad you were finally able to get on (I share your pain in that respect - these boards are really experiencing some major problems - but let's hope they get fixed soon & then even more people can read about the classless treatment we are getting). I really cannot add anything to what you've said, which truly summed things up perfectly. Everything you said is perfectly in line with what we thought when we selected this cruise line and this itinerary, and everything we are now thinking that it's all gone to hell in a handbag.

 

As one of our fellow cruisers said to me in an e-mail, paraphrasing his TA - he thinks Oceania hoped we wouldn't notice! :D

 

I didn't call the 800 number specifically because I anticipated precisely what you said - evasion practiced to the extreme. I also knew I wouldn't get to talk to anyone of importance, who had the authority to tell the truth or to make things better. Many of us have sent e-mails to LAuguste@oceaniacruises.com, who must be the poor soul delegated to dealing with us, but to my knowledge not a soul has received a response.

 

Thank you for telling us that you *were* able to put the amount in dispute and I hope you will update us as to what you learn.

 

Anybody who has cruised for any length of time is aware that changes happen while on the cruise, and sometimes minor switches occur even before departure. We've all skipped ports, had abbreviated ports, excursions that got cancelled etc. I have not seen one person post, either in relation to this topic, or ever, detailing such wholesale changes carried out in the best covert manner that I've seen in a while, and only a brief time after final payment.

 

I don't think *any* of us thought Oceania was capable of this - but I for one will not be giving them the opportunity to prove that it was an unheard of, one time occurrence, unless something dramatic happens in the very near future.

 

I would really urge anyone on this cruise to make a stink here, make a stink with your TA, make a stink with someone at Oceania, and, most importantly, tell as many people as possible among your cruising friends & family. Word of mouth is such an important way to "yeah" or "nay" a company that I know of, and most of the time it seems that companies just don't get it. I'm self-employed and I began my entire business without ever having advertised anywhere, because people knew what I did & liked how I did it & told other people. Every person that remains quiet is playing into their hands that they can successfully pull this one over on us at no cost to them & walk away congratulating themselves at some board meeting that we're all stupid. Even people not booked on this cruise had better be looking at this situation carefully with eyes wide open, because if they can get away with it here, they're going to look to do the same thing with other itineraries down the road. :mad:

[digby]

I doubt the line will offer you money since it will probably cost more to have people on the ship than in port.

 

When were the changes announced?

[Andee]

That depends on how you define "announced".

 

The changes appeared on the website; a passenger noticed and posted them on the message boards.

 

A letter was supposedly sent August 31; neither my travel agent nor I have received such a letter.

[NancyBancy]

Digby, I'm just curious, since it's something we've been trying to assess. Do you honestly think a ship in port (shops, gambling, and maybe bars etc. not available) is making more than when a ship is at sea? Especially when they are probably going to be sure their excursions "go" in every port, so they will still be getting excursion income? Especially when it's 20% more sea time they are gaining? Since we haven't received any truthful answers to any questions, we've been left to our own devices to speculate. Our conclusion is that a ship at sea, with everything open, paying no port charges, is making more money at sea than at port. I always thought that was why port intensive cruises cost more as a general rule, and sea day intensive cruises cost less, as a general rule. Please enlighten me if you think otherwise.

 

Announcement? No announcement. One cruiser over the holiday weekend logged onto our itinerary on Oceania's website and found it bore no resemblance to what we booked. Backed into a corner, Oceania claims it released us a statement on August 31. Since Oceania has my e-mail address, one would think that would be the quickest, cheapest way to communicate with me. I have received no e-mail. Our TAs as a rule have been blindsided when we called them and virtually all of them are hearing it from us for the first time. I know it was a holiday weekend and mail is slow, but it's a week since August 31?? So - draw your own conclusions about the timing of the so-called announcement.

[arizonaartie]

If passengers do all their pre trips, post trips, and shore excurisons through the cruise line, they don't have to worry about itinerary changes causing them to alter their plans. The cruise line does all the arranging.

If passengers do their own bookings for all the above and the itinerary changes significantly it could become a nightmare for the passengers to change all their pre arranged plans. They could conceivably lose deposits, be unable to alter pre paid trips, etc.

It now seems to me than I had previously thought in doing our own arranging. Am I wrong in this assessment?

arizonaartie

[arizonaartie]

If passengers do all their pre trips, post trips, and shore excurisons through the cruise line, they don't have to worry about itinerary changes causing them to alter their plans. The cruise line does all the arranging.

If passengers do their own bookings for all the above and the itinerary changes significantly it could become a nightmare for the passengers to change all their pre arranged plans. They could conceivably lose deposits, be unable to alter pre paid trips, etc.

It now seems to me that there is much more financial risk being taken by those who don't use the Oceania arranged pre, post, and shore excursion trips etc. Am I wrong in this assessment?

arizonaartie

[arizonaartie]

If passengers do all their pre trips, post trips, and shore excurisons through the cruise line, they don't have to worry about itinerary changes causing them to alter their plans. The cruise line does all the arranging.

If passengers do their own bookings for all the above and the itinerary changes significantly it could become a nightmare for the passengers to change all their pre arranged plans. They could conceivably lose deposits, be unable to alter pre paid trips, etc.

It now seems to me that there is much more financial risk being taken by those who don't use the Oceania arranged pre, post, and shore excursion trips etc. Am I wrong in this assessment?

arizonaartie

[NancyBancy]

I understand your point, but nowhere did I agree when I booked a cruise to drink only Oceania drinks, wear only Oceania clothing, become a gambler for the duration of my cruise, or see a port only thru Oceania's excursions. While I think we might get a false impression from this board because we share so much information, my estimation is that the average Oceania passenger is not going off on a private excursion on his or her own, but rather is using Oceania's arrangements. I don't think any cruise line ever has to fear empty excursions.

 

However, I personally have never cited private arrangements as a reason for being upset about what has transpired. I HAVE cited the 20% reduction of my time in port. If I make non-Oceania plans, I am careful about my financial exposure, so it doesn't matter to me if it's Tuesday or Wednesday or Halloween, I always try to have my ducks lined up. I DID, however, buy this cruise based on the amount of time I was going to be on LAND and the location of that LAND (yes, I'm shouting). I determined what I was willing to pay for the cruise based on the a) new places I was going and b) the amount of time I was going to be there. 20% more time at sea is not what I bought.

 

I am now NOT seeing one of the primary ports I used as a criterion, and I am also spending dramatically less time in the other ports, and I am not being compensated for this pruning.

 

I understand what you're saying and hope I'm making some sense in return.:D

[FinelyCruising]

Will you still be 100% on this cruise? ;)

[HowardB]

Nancy -

 

Because your time in port is only a small portion of the total time on the cruise, a 20 percent reduction in port time does not equate to a 20 percent increase in time at sea, it is less of a percentage increase.

 

You earlier indicated that you originally had a total of 61 hours in port and now were losing 12.5 of those hours. This means that you originally had 179 hours at sea, if this were a 10 day cruise (240 hours). The additional 12.5 hours at sea represent an increase of 7 percent time at sea.

 

Perhaps if you focus on the 7 percent figure, you will not feel as bad. On the other hand, if you are calculating total time in port, in a practical sense you really have lesss time in port, because you must get back to the ship somewhat earlier than it is leaving the port. Figure on getting back about 45 minutes early per port. This 45 minutes per port now represents a greater percentage of port time that you really must be on the ship that with the original port times.

[English Voyager]

Is there no clause in the Booking Conditions referring to alterations by the Company prior to departure?

Usually,the Company must make notification in writing,and if the alteration(s) are major offer offer a comparable cruise,if possible,or cancellation with a full refund.

[NancyBancy]

Howard, I knew I was pushing my luck yesterday with my original post, because math is really not my strong suit (though I do have a fine business sense & know when I'm getting ripped off!). You are oh-so-correct and I defer to your much more finely honed math skills! I will cease & desist from claiming that my sea time has increased by the same *percentage* as the decrease in my land time (I did say that right, didn't I, or am I making things worse?).

 

The amount of time we have to be back on ship would be the same if the ship was leaving at noon or at 5 p.m. so I didn't factor that in at all, and considered it a "wash."

 

English Voyager, The fine print of any cruise line so heavily favors the cruise line that looking for any benefit that accrues to the passenger is useless. Basically the only protections afforded a passenger are those mandated by law. However, I did come up with another thought last night that I'm going to put in a separate post so perhaps any lawyers out there can stick their two cents in.

 

Finely cruising, I will be *so* 100% there and *so* intent on having a good time and *so* intent on not only not spending one red cent to enrich Oceania, and perhaps even offering my fellow passengers libations & other goodies so *they* don't have to spend one red cent - it's gonna be great!

[Jane110]

Nancy and Mistik,

 

Please keep us informed on the developments of any cancellation allowances due to the drastic changes in your itinerary.

 

Thanks,

Jane

[tlmlb]

I doubt the line will offer you money since it will probably cost more to have people on the ship than in port.

 

you really gotta be kidding.....

[Andee]

On Sunday, I emailed Oceania asking for the reason behind these changes, and received the canned response that the message would be forwarded to their Passenger Services Supervisors.

 

This afternoon, I wrote again, asking why I hadn't heard anything in 4+ days. I got a response saying they would again forward my question to Passenger Services Supervisors with a request for an immediate reply.

 

Given the lateness of the hour, I'd be satisifed with a real response any time during the business day Friday. We'll see!

[arizonaartie]

It seems to me that people are mostly upset because they don't know the REASONS for the itinerary changes. The following questions need to be answered:

1. What are the reasons and were they within the control of the cruise line?

2. When did these reasons come about? We're they timed to be withheld until after final payment date?

 

If the reasons were beyond the control of the cruise company and if they made the itinerary changes soon afterward and then release the change information immediately then it appears we cannot fault the cruise line. However, if information was purposely withheld until after the final payment date, it seems a bit shady.

arizonaartie

[Andee]

In an email to a poster on the yahoo board, Frank Del Rio said that the changes were inposed upon Oceania and that they only learned of them recently. That's interesting, but not really much of an answer.

 

I think that if Oceania had been immediately forthcoming twith the real reasons for the change, passengers might have been more understanding and less upset.

 

This is the response I received today to my second email yesterday (the first one was Sunday) asking for answers:

 

Dear sir,

In reference to the Port change the reason as to why this occured is being relayed to us here in Oceania call center in the upcoming days. A formal letter is going to be mailed to everyone who is on this sail date with an explanation. We apologize about this inconvenience.

 

Just clears things right up, doesn't it?

[digby]

you really gotta be kidding.....

 

 

You disagree? Want to explain why? Seems to me you are NOT eating the ships food or using their services while you are off the ship.

[digby]

"Please enlighten me if you think otherwise."

 

After reading your posts on your 'disappointment, I'm pretty certain there is no one alive who could do that!

[Jane110]

You disagree? Want to explain why? Seems to me you are NOT eating the ships food or using their services while you are off the ship.

 

 

Don't flame me, but if people are off the ship, they are not buying drinks at the bar or dining room, (or pool, or other social gathering like team trivia), paying for spa/salon services, gambling in the casino, using the internet or buying from the art auction.

 

I'm not an accountant and have no clue as to how the books balance, but it seems to me that the ship makes more money when the cruisers are on it rather than off it, even figuring in the cost of food.

 

Just a guess from a non-numbers person.

 

Jane

[Pismo]

I hear (as others probably also have), that a shuffle was required due to a berth cancellation by the Tunisians. "O" seem to be working on how best to make the best of this situation, and say that an announcement is likely next week.

So, maybe things will be improved a bit - lets wait and see...