Cutting corners?

[arima22]

I understand that on Uniworld river cruises they have open dining, which is why, when I finally decide to try river cruising, it will be with Uniworld.

 

I think you should check Uniworld's definition of "open dining." Does not cover "when", just where and who- in other words not set seating arrangement. That is true of most river cruise lines.

 

Here is Uniworld's statement: "Casual elegant dress code and open-seating dining, so you can dine wherever and with whomever you like"

[LHT28]

I understand that on Uniworld river cruises they have open dining, which is why, when I finally decide to try river cruising, it will be with Uniworld.

I would agree with ARIMA it may be Open dining but still only one seating time

Most river cruises are the same ..you sit where you want but dinner in served at 7pm :D

[newlondon]

I have been lurking on this thread, but now would like to make several comments.

First. Congratulations Don on your 50th year of wedded bliss:D We are taking an independent luxury land tour of the UK next year for ours.

Second. Those of you who are considering river cruising carefully consider your mobility. Most river cruises, from experience, require substantial walking, some of it difficult. We loved rc but are now committed to ocean trips due to our desire for more comfort.

Third. This will be our first O cruise CPT/CPT and we don't care about shortened port times, not that they have happened yet. If we wanted to lock down every minute we would never put it in the hands of a corporation; we would do it ourselves. Corporate contracts all warn that you are subject to change so if you are their client. If you take a chance buyer beware.

Fourth. I agree O's silence is unfortunate. I'm not sure their public company status is the only reason. Many NYSE cos make statements, carefully vetted for sure, but don't leave a smog of uncertainty. To me the reticence of all cruise lines is mind boggling, since even a little info would go a long way.

[Pet Nit Noy]

I have limited interest in land touring of more than a few days, it is exhausting to ride around on buses, trains and check in and out of hotels.

 

My husband and I enjoy in-depth touring so we have little difficulty staying in one location more than a couple of nights. We're also happy to use the train for day trips rather than relocate hotels. With a threshold of a 1 1/2 hour train trip, we visited Canterbury from London during our pre-cruise week rather than relocate. Two years ago, our 1 1/2 hour trip was to Oxford, again during independent travel pre-cruise.

 

If our cruise is very distant, we're likely to turn the trip into an extravaganza that defeats the benefit of not having to change hotels. Our most infamous example occurred during our Bejing to Hong Kong cruise. That began with a hotel stay in both Tokyo and in Beijing prior to the cruise. We stayed in a hotel in Kyoto during the overnight port call in Kobe. And we ended with a post-cruise stay in a Hong Kong hotel. Add in the ship-as-hotel and we're at a whopping five hotels. Standard cruises are always three-hotel trips. Once we're doing that, it isn't too great a leap to change hotels about the same number of times during independent travel. (Besides, to us, evenings spent on land are huge compensation for the extra wear and tear of independent travel.)

 

The way we travel, either cruising or independent travel, there's less difference than other travelers' versions. Both are driven by our emphasis on meaningful experiences in destinations that mean something to us.

Edited September 11, 2015 by Pet Nit Noy

[Paulchili]

Corporate contracts all warn that you are subject to change so if you are their client. If you take a chance buyer beware.

 

Agreed.

However, having cruised with Oceania for 10 years now with many cruises behind us, we have never encounter these types of massive changes - this is a new phenomena and possibly a trend. In the past I was comfortable trusting O that the itinerary I paid for would be the one I would sail (unless last minute changes were warranted due to safety or weather related issues). This is a different matter altogether and I am not so sure I can trust them going forward on my future booked cruises.

That and the lack of communication/satisfactory explanation from O are the upsetting parts.

Edited September 11, 2015 by Paulchili

[MightyQuinn]

... this is a new phenomena and possibly a trend. In the past I was comfortable trusting O that the itinerary I paid for would be the one I would sail (unless last minute changes were warranted due to safety or weather related issues). This is a different matter altogether and I am not so sure I can trust them going forward on my future booked cruises.

That and the lack of communication/satisfactory explanation from O are the upsetting parts.

You're right. This sneaky business of changing port times after final payment is new behavior for Oceania. It's particularly disturbing to see it widespread across many itineraries in different parts of the world. Oceania knows they "gotcha" and probably figure any initial passenger upset will quickly be forgotten. And maybe it will. Our loss of 7 hours on our upcoming Insignia cruise is not the end of the world but it certainly makes me look differently at Oceania. I don't like what appears to be sneaking stuff past unsuspecting passengers and hoping it'll stick. I'll be keeping a watchful eye to see if it continues.

[Paulchili]

If our cruise is very distant, we're likely to turn the trip into an extravaganza that defeats the benefit of not having to change hotels. Our most infamous example occurred during our Bejing to Hong Kong cruise. That began with a hotel stay in both Tokyo and in Beijing prior to the cruise. We stayed in a hotel in Kyoto during the overnight post call in Kobe. And we ended with a post-cruise stay in a Hong Kong hotel. Add in the ship-as-hotel and we're at a whopping five hotels. Standard cruises are always three-hotel trips. Once we're doing that, it isn't too great a leap to change hotels about the same number of times during independent travel. (Besides, to us, evenings spent on land are huge compensation for the extra wear and tear of independent travel.)

 

Not to nit-pick but the example given could hardly be called (or compared to) a land trip.

Pre and post cruise stays in hotels are not that unusual or demanding; neither was your overnight in Kyoto, which I assume required only toiletries (instead of lugging all your suitcases).

All the other places visited were in the comfort of the ship.

A true land trip where one wishes to see as many places as you might visit on a cruise would require many, many trips by trains/buses/cars/planes and many changes of hotels (think of a river cruise from Amsterdam to the Black Sea or a cruise from Istanbul to Dubai, just for a couple of examples) :D.

OTOH, if you are only visiting a specific area - such as Tuscany - then you can indeed base yourself centrally and do day trips without ever moving from your hotel - but that is not comparable to a cruise..

Edited September 11, 2015 by Paulchili

[buggins0402]

Given the comments, I think we'll give river cruising a pass. It sounds much too regimented for our tastes. And, if they have fitness centers, they would probably be pretty sparse. We are definitely strange, in that the nice fitness centers on ships were one of the reasons we even considered cruising as a travel option.

 

Now, I'm hoping someone else will comment they received an adjustment giving back some port hours......

 

Analysis of cost cutting benefits should always factor in some potential revenue loss and cost savings shouldn't be calculated irrespective of this fact.

Edited September 11, 2015 by buggins0402

[tropicalkerry2002]

are the cruises that have shortened port times now part of the OLife Advantage

where O excursions are now included?

 

If all of them are, THAT would be interesting!

 

Please, all of you who are affected, let us know if YOUR cruise is now part of the promotion.

 

Thanks!

[avalong]

I think you should check Uniworld's definition of "open dining." Does not cover "when", just where and who- in other words not set seating arrangement. That is true of most river cruise lines.

 

Here is Uniworld's statement: "Casual elegant dress code and open-seating dining, so you can dine wherever and with whomever you like"

 

I invite you to read Caviargal's July 2015 review of the S.S. Catherine. She was pretty clear that they could wander into the dining room whenever they pleased.

[MightyQuinn]

Please, all of you who are affected, let us know if YOUR cruise is now part of the promotion.

Our HK-CPT cruise in Oct 2015 lost 7 hours in 6 ports. It's not part of OLife.

[tropicalkerry2002]

My curiosity is satisfied already!

[StanandJim]

I invite you to read Caviargal's July 2015 review of the S.S. Catherine. She was pretty clear that they could wander into the dining room whenever they pleased.

 

That is untrue.

To begin with, there is only one restaurant on those River boats, and they use it for crew meetings in between mealtimes.

 

Each meal has "set" Dining hours, something like "Breakfast will be served from 7AM to 9Am", and passengers assemble as they choose, during that window. Additionally, there is typically an anytime coffee and tea station in the lounge, which serves light snacks (think cookies and/or crackers).

 

It might be worth mentioning here that passengers are NOT encouraged to remain on those River Boats during a port stay. If either you or your spouse are "sleeper inners", it may not be for you.

[Travelcat2]

I have been following this thread with interest........ when did it turn into a river boat thread?

[buggins0402]

I have been following this thread with interest........ when did it turn into a river boat thread?

 

And the reason for your issue?

[cbb]

are NCL and Regent cruisers seeing shortened port times as well?

[Paulchili]

........ when did it turn into a river boat thread?

 

I guess when people started wondering about life after Oceania :D

[Goldmann]

I'm trying to imagine the relief circulating the corporate halls when this discussion turned to river cruise seating rules rather than the original thread topic.

 

I also wonder who won the "it'll all blow over" office pool? Was the determining factor time or post number to topic morph?

 

Re an earlier question our 9/24 trip below has one port increase and port decrease for no real net change with both advised via e docs just received. O life did not apply. Waiting on final docs for 10/4 ride.

[Pet Nit Noy]

Not to nit-pick but the example given could hardly be called (or compared to) a land trip.

 

If that's your take away message from my post then I clearly didn't do an adequate job explaining my point of view.

 

We're somewhat reluctant destination cruisers precisely because the sort of cruise you're describing is, for us, a mish mash of too many disparate destinations. Your hypothetical Amersterdam to the Black Sea itinerary highlights the negatives of cruising: a quick and superficial gallop into too many unrelated ports. We're happiest cruising when we're on the ship 12-14 days going to destinations that make sense together and not just because the ship's cruising range can make those legs of the trip. (Zebrugge and Amsterdam, the first two stops on our cruise didn't really belong in a Baltic/Scandinavian itinerary, but this didn't bother us because we've been to Belgium and The Netherlands previously. After several earlier land visits, we were down to a few undone things that pretty much matched up with the number of hours in our port call.)

 

Pre and post cruise stays in hotels are not that unusual or demanding

 

"Not that unusual." No argument from me. "Not demanding." Clearly you've never toured the way we tour.

 

A true land trip where one wishes to see as many places as you might visit on a cruise would require many, many trips by trains/buses/cars/planes and many changes of hotels (think of a river cruise from Amsterdam to the Black Sea

 

We'll agree to disagree about the definition of a true land trip. We simply want a more in-depth experience visit than the ones offered by travel organizations. To us a true land trip is an in-depth trip. The last time we joined a commercially available tour was a alumni bus trip in Central Europe that included too many destinations: Warsaw, Krakow, Slovakia, Budapest, Vienna, Bratislava, and Prague. The trip would have benefited by reducing by 1/3 the number of destinations and extending the remaining visits.

 

Traveling independently, we were happy with an itinerary that had us relocate from Venice, to three Emilia Romagna cities (Bologna, Parma, Ravenna), and, finally, on to Le Marche (Urbino). I know many readers will think we didn't hit enough destinations, but our objective is just about the opposite of "hitting" a place.

 

So I come back to post #229. With some exceptions, there's a consistency to our travel choices. Whether cruising or land travel, we try to limit the number of destinations and do each one in greater depth. Any time we're on a pre-set itinerary, we are compromising our preferred way to travel for some convenience. If Oceania is going to shorten port calls to the point where visits are even more superficial than the current ones, we'll simply stop cruising.

Edited September 12, 2015 by Pet Nit Noy

[Mura]

There seem to be some different perceptions operating here.

 

We have done cross-country (generally US and/or Canada) road trips where we might be doing one day/one hotel stops but also staying in one place for several days and doing day trips in the area. We've done the same in Europe.

 

If we are visiting a national park, we stay there for several days so as to see as much of the park as we can. Sometimes as much as a week but usually more like 3-4 days.

 

When we were younger (oh, so long ago) we might have had a one day/one hotel kind of trip but in recent years we prefer to base ourselves in one place and then drive hither and yon. For example, back in April 2005 we did a Tuscany trip. We spent 4 days in Florence, then picked up a car and drove to Pienza. We stayed there 3 days and visited Siena, Montepulciano and Volterra. Somewhere in there we also visited San Gimignano but my diary isn't clear ...

 

Then we went on to Portovenere where we stayed for another 3 days and one of those days was spent in Cinque Terre.

 

A land trip does NOT have to be constant driving and moving from one accommodation to another.

 

There are lots of options ... and you don't have to rent a car but in Europe trains are very convenient. CLEARLY, if you are traveling by train you don't want heavy suitcases to lug on and off, and you do want to base yourself in one place for several days. This is not hard to do.

 

To be clear, yes, we like cruising because we don't have to be moving suitcases from one day to the next ... but I'm not sure how happy we will be if O continues this pattern of changing times in port once final payment has been made.

 

For our next cruise (BCN to NYC) we don't really care. We tend to agree with Don and Betsy on this. We don't plan full day tours (occasionally we do) but for the most part we're looking at 4-5 hours. We're old enough now that we don't really want to exhaust ourselves by going nonstop all day. And a TA itinerary doesn't tend to have stops at fascinating cities like Lisbon or Paris.

 

If we really take the March Riviera Caribbean cruise (not sure that we will, we are wait listed for a preferred cabin) I won't mind losing port times there either. If we were doing a long desired European or Asian cruise, yes, then we'd be upset ... depending on how much time is to be lost. One hour here or there doesn't bother me but four hours does!

 

So we shall see.

 

Mura

[MVPinBoynton]

There seem to be some different perceptions operating here.

 

We have done cross-country (generally US and/or Canada) road trips where we might be doing one day/one hotel stops but also staying in one place for several days and doing day trips in the area. We've done the same in Europe.

 

If we are visiting a national park, we stay there for several days so as to see as much of the park as we can. Sometimes as much as a week but usually more like 3-4 days.

 

When we were younger (oh, so long ago) we might have had a one day/one hotel kind of trip but in recent years we prefer to base ourselves in one place and then drive hither and yon. For example, back in April 2005 we did a Tuscany trip. We spent 4 days in Florence, then picked up a car and drove to Pienza. We stayed there 3 days and visited Siena, Montepulciano and Volterra. Somewhere in there we also visited San Gimignano but my diary isn't clear ...

 

Then we went on to Portovenere where we stayed for another 3 days and one of those days was spent in Cinque Terre.

 

A land trip does NOT have to be constant driving and moving from one accommodation to another.

 

There are lots of options ... and you don't have to rent a car but in Europe trains are very convenient. CLEARLY, if you are traveling by train you don't want heavy suitcases to lug on and off, and you do want to base yourself in one place for several days. This is not hard to do.

 

To be clear, yes, we like cruising because we don't have to be moving suitcases from one day to the next ... but I'm not sure how happy we will be if O continues this pattern of changing times in port once final payment has been made.

 

For our next cruise (BCN to NYC) we don't really care. We tend to agree with Don and Betsy on this. We don't plan full day tours (occasionally we do) but for the most part we're looking at 4-5 hours. We're old enough now that we don't really want to exhaust ourselves by going nonstop all day. And a TA itinerary doesn't tend to have stops at fascinating cities like Lisbon or Paris.

 

If we really take the March Riviera Caribbean cruise (not sure that we will, we are wait listed for a preferred cabin) I won't mind losing port times there either. If we were doing a long desired European or Asian cruise, yes, then we'd be upset ... depending on how much time is to be lost. One hour here or there doesn't bother me but four hours does!

 

So we shall see.

 

Mura

 

I do hope you are on the March Riviera cruise. We are on it and looking forward to what should be a most enjoyable and relaxing cruise.

[5milesfromtheocean]

An hour here and there, not a big deal. But taking away the entire evening in Monte Carlo???

 

Itinerary Update

Dear Valued Guests and Travel Partners,

 

We would like to advise you of an update to your voyage aboard Riviera on November 7, 2015.

Please note the arrival and departure time changes listed below:

 

08-Nov-2015 Venice, Italy:

Departure time has been changed from (8:00 PM) to 6:00 PM

 

10-Nov-2015 Kotor, Montenegro:

Arrival time has been changed from (9:00 AM) to 10:00 AM

 

15-Nov-2015 Monte Carlo, Monaco:

Departure time has been changed from (11:00 PM) to 7:00 PM

 

We look forward to providing you with a memorable cruise experience.

Warmest Regards,

Oceania Cruises

[Paulchili]

P N N,

While I understand what you are saying (I think), I wonder why you even bother cruising.

By definition, cruises will visit ports for a very short time (and getting shorter as we speak :)), which is not sufficient for the type of in-depth experience that you prefer.

Also, even though Baltic cruises are "regional", they visits such unrelated places and countries like Russia, Germany, Sweden and Estonia and several others ("a mish mash of too many disparate destinations"?) - sort of like the bus trip that you didn't like :confused:.

Anyway, everyone should travel when and where and how they prefer - vive la différence :)

Sorry for being OT

Edited September 12, 2015 by Paulchili

[Mura]

I do hope you are on the March Riviera cruise. We are on it and looking forward to what should be a most enjoyable and relaxing cruise.

 

We certainly would look forward to seeing you on the cruise.

 

The reason for our hesitation is twofold ... we're not big on the Caribbean for starters, but many of these ports would be new to us, so that is a plus.

 

We considered this because friends are on it ... but they may be switching.

 

And lastly, we are wait listed for our preferred cabin. We have no idea if it will come up or not! So we paid our deposit to enhance our chances, but right now we don't know what will be happening.

 

Since we had to cancel the NCL cruise that left Boston today (!) because of DH's eye surgery we are still looking for a spring cruise ... so far I haven't found anything that really grabs me, but traveling with our friends (and of course YOU) was tempting.

 

I'll let you know ...

 

Mura

[Pet Nit Noy]

While I understand what you are saying (I think), I wonder why you even bother cruising.

 

The answer is that we cruise far less than we take land vacations. When we do cruise, we choose an itinerary which is a good fit for us. It's rare that we select an cruise with a standard itinerary, the kind which sails at regular intervals or several times in a season. We tend to be attracted to one-of itineraries.

 

We're especially picky about our embarkation and disembarkation ports since our time pre- and post-cruise is typically as long, if not longer than the cruise itself.

 

Also, even though Baltic cruises are "regional", they visits such unrelated places and countries like Russia, Germany, Sweden and Estonia and several others ("a mish mash of too many disparate destinations"?) - sort of like the bus trip that you didn't like :confused:.

 

Again, it's a matter of choosing an itinerary very carefully. The stop in St. Petersburg was definitely an outlier geographically and culturally, but we'd already visited SPB for three days as part of a Moscow to St. Petersburg river cruise. That means the places we still wanted to see in SPB matched up with the duration of our two-day port call. We selected an itinerary that did not include a port call in Germany. Estonia is one of the Baltic states. And although we, like most other cruisers, refer to those cruises as Baltic cruises, they really are Baltic and Scandinavian cruises which means Sweden/Stockholm groups well with Helsinki and Copenhagen.