My thoughts; Crystal versus Oceania

[cruisemom42]

21 minutes ago, 1985rz1 said:

As for timely notification, it is not very useful to tell passengers of the port changes until the details are worked out.  Could Oceania have notified passengers sooner?  I don't know, but it's not in the company's interest to blindside its customers,

 

I'm not sure I buy this. I think full disclosure is better. Maybe something along the lines of "We have just learned that your upcoming cruise will not be able to call at X and X ports. We are diligently working on an alternate itinerary that will be sent to you as soon as it is finalized."

 

Also, perhaps in China this occurs, but I can also cite several times where cruise lines have definitely withheld info until sailing -- or at least until after final payment -- in an attempt to keep folks from cancelling the cruise. I do agree that they happen across the board and are not unique to Oceania. This has happened to me specifically with both Celebrity and Holland America.

 

I know the info was withheld because I heard the ports were cancelled from staff (friends) who work on another line; the cancellations were made before final payment but were not communicated until we were actually onboard ship via a letter on the bed upon arrival...

 

 

Edited January 16, 2020 by cruisemom42

[ak1004]

I agree that cruise lines should do a better job - but is there any evidence that Oceania does those cancellations more often than other lines? If there is, then the conclusion not to sail on Oceania can be justified if each port in the itinerary is really important. if all lines do it, then how switching to a different line is going to help? 

[Ken the cruiser]

57 minutes ago, ak1004 said:

I agree that cruise lines should do a better job - but is there any evidence that Oceania does those cancellations more often than other lines? If there is, then the conclusion not to sail on Oceania can be justified if each port in the itinerary is really important. if all lines do it, then how switching to a different line is going to help? 

Making the decision not to cruise with a specific line again, as in our case, is usually based on a culmination of issues, with the last one simply being the proverbial straw that broke the camel’s back. 

For us when the negative issues got to the point where even the thought of booking a cruise with a particular line, in our case HAL and O, didn’t leave a feeling of euphoria, that’s when we knew it was time to move on as there are plenty of other cruise lines with great itineraries to choose from. 

Edited January 16, 2020 by Ken the cruiser

[1985rz1]

3 hours ago, cruisemom42 said:

 

I'm not sure I buy this. I think full disclosure is better. Maybe something along the lines of "We have just learned that your upcoming cruise will not be able to call at X and X ports. We are diligently working on an alternate itinerary that will be sent to you as soon as it is finalized."

 

This may be a personal preference.  I wouldn't like to be left hanging because I'd want to see the changes before I decide whether to cancel or not...too nerve wracking 😵  But I can understand if folks would want to be notified before a resolution is found.  For me, ignorance is bliss 🤩.

 

Quote

Also, perhaps in China this occurs, but I can also cite several times where cruise lines have definitely withheld info until sailing -- or at least until after final payment -- in an attempt to keep folks from cancelling the cruise. I do agree that they happen across the board and are not unique to Oceania. This has happened to me specifically with both Celebrity and Holland America.

 

I know the info was withheld because I heard the ports were cancelled from staff (friends) who work on another line; the cancellations were made before final payment but were not communicated until we were actually onboard ship via a letter on the bed upon arrival...

 

I can't deny that some companies may let the fear of a short term losses interfere with doing what's right.  That hasn't happened to me.  I have seen some stupid reasons for port changes, but the notifications have always been timely.

 

Guess what I believe is that we shouldn't claim nefarious behavior on the part of Oceania without having the facts to support it.  In this case, I didn't see any supporting facts, so I'd tend to give Oceania the benefit of the doubt, especially since the problem was with Chinese Port rule that may have resulted from a surprise change in rules.  If there is proof of deliberate delay of notifications for profit reasons that would a different kettle of fish 🐟🐠🐡.

 

Still, if not obviously deliberate, I would be annoyed, just not ready to play the blame game without the facts.

Edited January 16, 2020 by 1985rz1

[Paulchili]

6 hours ago, 1985rz1 said:

PaulC

 

I agree with you, but PaulM shouldn't put the burden blame for the cruise changes entirely on Oceania.  China is a country notorious for arbitrary changes and closures when it come to travel.  We've done two small group eco trips (land based) and in both case last minute changes in our itinerary were required.  Two were done while we were on tour, causing our operator to find new lodgings and change segments of the itinerary in real time.  Another time a golden monkey reserve which was to be one of the major highlights was closed to the public only somewhat before our departure causing the operator to find a new accessible reserve, change the itinerary, and find new lodgings in the remote Mishan mountains, not an easy or quick job.

 

In the case of cruises, finding new ports at the last minute and figuring out how to work them into a complex itinerary is not easy and it takes time to make them.  As for timely notification, it is not very useful to tell passengers of the port changes until the details are worked out.  Could Oceania have notified passengers sooner?  I don't know, but it's not in the company's interest to blindside its customers, and it is quite likely that Oceania was blindsided by a political action taken by the Chinese government, local, regional, or national.

 

And to be sure, similar changes and notification issues happened to us on a booked Regent sailing, so these things happen across the board.

B,

I agree with you about China and their arbitrary "policies"

I felt that PaulM has not been happy with O for some time based on his recent posts and this was his "last straw".

I think he is ready to move on - this was a tipping point. His call.

[AtA]

Port changes would not be a reason for me to choose not to cruise with a company. In fact in November we got notice that our cruise to the Norwegian Fjords in June on Crystal had two ports changed. Am I disappointed yes but when I cruise, the cruise ship itself is part of the vacation.

 

 

[Shawnino]

I wish I could read Mandarin so I could say "show me the regulation!" but I don't.

I still don't believe the regulation exists.

Here's why:

 

1. I've never heard of a country caring where a tourist goes after you leave their territory.

There is way too much garbage in the opposite direction (most infamously, Muslim countries not wanting to let people come in if Israel stamped their passport), but once you're on your way out, you are on your way and as long as your exit-visa situation is in order and there's approved transport, that's it.

 

2. China and S. Korea have cordial if cool relations, and air travel from one to the other is straightforward.

A quick check on Matrix for a random day in February shows 31 non-stop flights between PEK and Seoul. Some of those may be codeshares, but Air China is doing eight flights, and Korean Air is doing six. And that's just PEK--Seoul.   

They'll let you fly your plane out to S. Korea, but won't let you sail your ship out? Yeah, sure.

 

I've got nine weeks booked on O in the next two years, but I still know a rat when I smell one. 

[Paulchili]

3 hours ago, Shawnino said:

China and S. Korea have cordial if cool relations, and air travel from one to the other is straightforward.

A quick check on Matrix for a random day in February shows 31 non-stop flights between PEK and Seoul. Some of those may be codeshares, but Air China is doing eight flights, and Korean Air is doing six. And that's just PEK--Seoul.   

They'll let you fly your plane out to S. Korea, but won't let you sail your ship out? Yeah, sure.

 

I do not know the details of this situation but there may be regulations that we do not know about - permanent or temporary.

Re: your flight comparison - I can fly RT San Francisco to Hawaii but I cannot cruise route that unless I stop in Mexico or Canada before returning to SFO.

[1985rz1]

I don't know if Oceania withheld information about the port changes or the notifications were timely.  But similar issues arose in 2017 due Chinese-South Korean tensions.  Advisories issued by China in 2017 led to cancellations of South Korean ports that were to follow Chinese ports. One point in China's advisories blocked China-based cruise ships from docking in South Korean ports.  As a result, Royal Caribbean removed South Korean ports from itineraries leaving from Chinese ports because of the new Chinese rules. Air travel between the two countries was not affected. This regulation may or may not be in effect today, and may or may not be the cause of the itinerary changes, but the point is that such arbitrary actions can and do happen.  Geopolitics is complicated.

 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-southkorea-china-cruises/royal-caribbean-cuts-south-korean-sites-from-china-cruises-idUSKBN16G148

 

Edited January 17, 2020 by 1985rz1

[ABoatNerd]

Well, yes, my (our) group impression is that Oceania has the worst port arrival certainty of any cruise line.

 

Some are legit like weather for tendering and unanticipated harbour decisions, but frankly we think Oceania could not care less if passengers get to a port. Also Oceania has had systemic mechanical issues with Regatta, previously reported, which has resulted in many (including our group), to miss many ports, many ports where there was no effort by Oceania to swap in replacement ports - for example, really how hard can it be on the Mexican riviera.

 

None of us (32 in our group), will book Oceania again.  

 

This is based on our group experience, but also includes talking to others on alternative cruise lines about Oceania and reviewing many years of cruise reviews. If you want 100% substantiation, no you will not get it - CC members do not have access to that level of information.

 

But our TA sure knows and our group's many TA's sure know.

 

Our impressions of Oceania:

 

- If they "plan" on not making a port, there is very little effort to swap in another (a recent thread on Azamara talked about this, former Oceania passengers griping and Azamara regulars indicating instances where swap in ports were provided)

 

- they do not reimburse port fees, many other lines do so

_____________________________________________________________________

 

If getting to ports is important to you - Oceania is the very last cruise line we would book.

 

 

[Petoonya]

14 hours ago, AtA said:

Port changes would not be a reason for me to choose not to cruise with a company. In fact in November we got notice that our cruise to the Norwegian Fjords in June on Crystal had two ports changed. Am I disappointed yes but when I cruise, the cruise ship itself is part of the vacation.

 

Realize many others are in a different camp but I'm with you. Missing some ports bothers me,  but the ship is my happy place. And only if it ceases to be such would I wish to switch.

[bbqoug]

18 minutes ago, ABoatNerd said:

 

- they do not reimburse port fees, many other lines do so

 

Is this definitely true of Oceania?

In my experience Azamara reimburses the port fees if a port has to be cancelled with no replacement. That only seems fair to me.

 

[ORV]

15 minutes ago, bbqoug said:

Is this definitely true of Oceania?

In my experience Azamara reimburses the port fees if a port has to be cancelled with no replacement. That only seems fair to me.

 

Yes, they do not, as the fees are not line itemed on your invoice but all lumped together. Right? Wrong? I don't know, but that's the way it is. 

 

Having said that I would take what you read from some posters with a grain of salt, or at least an understanding that they have an axe to grind with Oceania. Not cheerleading, just telling it like it is. 

[Paulchili]

1 hour ago, ABoatNerd said:

None of us (32 in our group), will book Oceania again.  

It’s always good to have a clear vision of your future plans - makes decisions a lot easier.

[AtA]

I will say that on my cruise in April from Sydney - Singapore by way of the Great Barrier Reef, when we missed ports because of weather and/or tides, Crystal managed all but one day to substitute other ports to make up for it and in some cases kept us in one port and drove us up the coast to a port we couldn't tender in because of rough seas.

 

And the big difference is when we had an unexpected sea day because of missing a port, we wound up with 3 additional lectures, additional art classes, dance lessons, trivia, knitting lessons, golf lessons, bridge lessons, computer classes, etc. 

When we missed a port on Sirena what did we get? More bingo, texas hold em, slots and blackjack tournaments that we had to pay to play. Oh and baggo and ping pong.

[Paulchili]

13 minutes ago, AtA said:

I will say that on my cruise in April from Sydney - Singapore by way of the Great Barrier Reef, when we missed ports because of weather and/or tides, Crystal managed all but one day to substitute other ports to make up for it and in some cases kept us in one port and drove us up the coast to a port we couldn't tender in because of rough seas.

 

And the big difference is when we had an unexpected sea day because of missing a port, we wound up with 3 additional lectures, additional art classes, dance lessons, trivia, knitting lessons, golf lessons, bridge lessons, computer classes, etc. 

When we missed a port on Sirena what did we get? More bingo, texas hold em, slots and blackjack tournaments that we had to pay to play. Oh and baggo and ping pong.

See my post #114 above.

[ABoatNerd]

Depends on the corporate degree of disregard to passengers.

 

Since this is not published, a consumer has to look at trends and incorporate their personal experiences.  

 

There is a difference in cancelling ports (scenario a) versus corporate will to make an effort (often a substantial effort) to substitute ports (scenario b).

 

It is b) where Oceania fails. In our groups many years of past patronage, this is where we observed first hand, that Oceania has the worst track record of substituting ports. Versus the many other lines we have collectively sailed on, Oceania fails miserably. 

 

The telling feature has been, over the years, when members of our group asked why no substitution, there was total silence from guest relations and officers.

 

This has not been the case. On Celebrity we have had instances where the Captain speaks to the status of forward ports - same on Crystal, HAL, Viking etc, the Captain, First officers speaking to options. Never any options provided on our Oceania voyages.  Over cocktail time, our groups assessment has been shared with many guests on alternative lines, it is amazing the same assessments we have received from others.

 

Actually,  AtA, your comment above is spot on "they come to Oceania for the food anyway" - that is the reason that Oceania owns their poor on time port arrival history. They believe they do not have to put themselves out for guests. Oceania is the least overtly customer engaged cruise line we have sailed on.

 

This is our group's assessment. Your circumstance may be different.

[sunlover12]

53 minutes ago, ABoatNerd said:

Oceania is the least overtly customer engaged cruise line we have sailed on.

 

Everyone has their own experiences but I'm going to chime in here and say that this has not been my experience.  I have done a lot less cruising than other folks on this board but I have found them to be quite customer service focused. They don't make decisions about cancelling ports without good reason.

 

I've been on 4 O cruises and a total of 2 ports were cancelled.  1 of those cancelled ports was substituted for another one. They were both on the same cruise - Panama Canal.   Both for safety reasons. A couple of days before we were to dock in Acapulco, they made the decision to not go there because of a high rate of recent homicides. Oceania substituted Acapulco for Zihuatenejo and did a good job of organizing tours there with short notice. The other cancelled port was Nicaragua.  It's a tender port and  after a lot of deliberation by the captain it was determined the sea was too rough. We received a full refund on the excursion that we had booked. On both occasions, the passengers were kept informed as to what was happening. 

 

I don't have the statistics but I find it hard to believe that Oceania's track record of cancelling ports is worse than other cruise lines. 

 

 

[1985rz1]

13 minutes ago, sunlover12 said:

Everyone has their own experiences but I'm going to chime in here and say that this has not been my experience....

I don't have the statistics but I find it hard to believe that Oceania's track record of cancelling ports is worse than other cruise lines. 

Our experiences agree with sunlover's.  We've only completed 6 Oceania cruises and we've experienced only one port cancellation, and that one was a tender port in rough seas.

[cruisemom42]

12 hours ago, AtA said:

I agree with you. No ship wants to cancel ports without good reason.

 

1 hour ago, sunlover12 said:

I don't have the statistics but I find it hard to believe that Oceania's track record of cancelling ports is worse than other cruise lines. 

 

 

My comments weren't so much about Oceania cancelling ports more often that other lines, or for no reason. 

 

Many cruise lines cancel ports and there are a lot of compelling reasons to do so. What bothers me is when that information is not communicated in a timely way or when an itinerary is offered that cannot be "run" as is because someone was sloppy in doing their research.  Both of these things speak to the care for passengers and level of attention to detail that I expect from a cruise line, especially one where the fares are not exactly bargain basement....

 

 

[FlyerTalker]

3 hours ago, ABoatNerd said:

Actually,  AtA, your comment above is spot on "they come to Oceania for the food anyway" - that is the reason that Oceania owns their poor on time port arrival history. They believe they do not have to put themselves out for guests. Oceania is the least overtly customer engaged cruise line we have sailed on.

 

Come for the food (be it as it may) and stay for the indifferent customer relations.

[Justalone]

2 hours ago, FlyerTalker said:

 

Come for the food (be it as it may) and stay for the indifferent customer relations.

It sounds like you are a well seasoned cruiser.
I am new to cruising, and considering Oceania, Princess,  or Celebrity for  my first cruise.   
Is Oceania, on  both counts, as bad as you say?

And, in your opinion,  if not Oceania,  would you recommend Princess or Celebrity  cruise line  for a first time cruiser?    For me,  I consider good healthy food quality,  preparation, and cleanliness of food service,  to be high priorities.   Best for food, service, entertainment, and value?

Thank you.

Edited January 18, 2020 by Justalone

[Petoonya]

24 minutes ago, Justalone said:

Yikes!  It sounds like you are a well seasoned cruiser.
I am new to cruising, and considering Oceania, Princess,  or Celebrity as my first cruise.   
Is Oceania, on  both counts, as bad as you say?

Which cruise line do you recommend as a first time cruiser.   Food, service, entertainment, value?

Thank you.

Justalone, it's all opinion. You can talk to some regular O customers here who are still thrilled with the product including me. I've only done six O cruises and headed back for more in April. Love the ambiance, the smaller ships, being closer to the water, friendly passengers, outstanding service and of course the dining. I experience "happy"- I come home happy.

 

Cruised on all the main stream cruise lines including Celebrity and Princess in recent years and gave them up. Too big, impersonal, nickel and dime-ing, noisy and a decline in service and dining. Never had a single problem with Oceania and never missed a port, but there's certainly a first time for everything.There are people here who also appreciate Celebrity and Princess. But they are considered mainstream cruise lines while Oceania is premium- you get what you pay for.

I steer my friends to Oceania every chance I get.

Think you'll be quite pleased.

 

 

Edited January 18, 2020 by Petoonya

[Justalone]

41 minutes ago, Petoonya said:

Justalone, it's all opinion. You can talk to some regular O customers here who are still thrilled with the product including me. I've only done six O cruises and headed back for more in April. Love the ambiance, the smaller ships, being closer to the water, friendly passengers, outstanding service and of course the dining. I experience "happy"- I come home happy.

 

Cruised on all the main stream cruise lines including Celebrity and Princess in recent years and gave them up. Too big, impersonal, nickel and dime-ing, noisy and a decline in service and dining. Never had a single problem with Oceania and never missed a port, but there's certainly a first time for everything.There are people here who also appreciate Celebrity and Princess. But they are considered mainstream cruise lines while Oceania is premium- you get what you pay for.

I steer my friends to Oceania every chance I get.

Think you'll be quite pleased.

 

 

 

41 minutes ago, Petoonya said:

 

 

 

Thank you, Petoonya,  
I am leaning toward an Oceania cruise as my first choice.  It seems the majority of posters on this forum, with a few exceptions, seem to really like their experience on Oceania.  Cuisine sounds amazing and delicious, small ship and passenger count, and excellent service appeals to me.   A bit more expensive than than Princess and Celebrity though.  Guess you get what you pay for?

 

Edited January 18, 2020 by Justalone
Double post?

[ak1004]

1 hour ago, Justalone said:

It sounds like you are a well seasoned cruiser.
I am new to cruising, and considering Oceania, Princess,  or Celebrity for  my first cruise.   
Is Oceania, on  both counts, as bad as you say?

And, in your opinion,  if not Oceania,  would you recommend Princess or Celebrity  cruise line  for a first time cruiser?    For me,  I consider good healthy food quality,  preparation, and cleanliness of food service,  to be high priorities.   Best for food, service, entertainment, and value?

Thank you.

 

We did Oceania, Princess and Celebrity (and few others). Compared to Princess and Celebrity, Oceania is in a different league. You can argue about Azamara, Viking, Crystal etc. but comparing Oceania to lines like Princess and Celebrity is not apples to apples.

 

That said, it also depends where you are sailing, if you are sailing with children or not, your preferences etc. Food and service on O is few steps above Princess and Celebrity. Entertainment and daily activities - not so much. it really comes to what's important to you. For a first cruise, you will probably enjoy all three of them.